Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1902-12-18
COURT IS NOW
PUZZLED ON
BONDS
THE BIGGEST QUESTION THAT
HAS BEEN BEFORE THE SU-
PREME COURT IN YEARS IS
NOW UP.

There is now pending before the su-
prerne court OF Georgia one OF the most
important questions ever brought before
that tribunal, a question that will af-
feet every town and city in the state
of Georgia, and especially Atlanta, as it
involves the legality of the proposed is
sue of water and sewer bonds. Owing to
the Importance of the case. the court has
ordered it reargued before the six JUS
tices and in addition TO the reargument
the court has invited all lawyers Who are
interested in the question to file briefs IN
the case.
The question relates to the issue of
bonds; whether the interest and the prin-
cipal are considered the bonded debt of
a town or whether the principal alone
shall be considered. The case was brought
up from the city of Calhoun, in Gordon
county, on a suit filed by Aaron Ron,
citizen of that town. The city authori-
ties sought to issue 5000 In bonds for
school purpose and when an attempt was
made to validate them in the superior
court as is required by law, Rolf filed
protest on the ground that the issue was
unconstitutional, as Calhoun had already
a bonded indebtedness which was equal
TO more than seven per centum OF the
assessed value of the property as re-
quired by the constitution of the state.
Judge George F. Gober, who was presid-
ing for Judge A. w. Ffte, decided 10
validate the bonds however, and the at
torneys for Rolf brought the case to the
supreme court.
1t was argued in October, but so far
the justices have not been able TO reach
a conclusion and have decided to have
reargument. Owing to the fact that the
question at issue affects every city In
Georgia should the court sustain the con-
t1,,@ ~ al QffOrnQWq interested
have been invited by the court to par
ticipate in the case. and file briefs.
Facts In the Case.
The town of Calhoun held an election
for the issuing of 1000 in bonds for the
purpose of erecting new school build
ing The bonds carried petition was
filed in the superior court to validate the
bonds and Aaron Rolf, citizen OF Cal
houn, filed an objection. His contention
was that IL the bonds were issued they
would exceed the limitation allowed by
the constitution for municipal debts,
which is per centum per annum of all
| the taxable property of the city issuing
the bonds. He alleged In his petition that
the city of Calhoun had already fioated
bonds for $12,5O0 for the purpose of build
ing a system of waterworks. which bonds
were bearing interest at per cent. II
the 5000 in bonds with its interest was
/ added to the issue of $4,000 with its in
terest, Rom contended that the debt of the
city would be larger than the constitu-
ton allowed, as Z per cent of the taxable
property of the town of Calhoun amount
ed to S23. 100 The question the court is
called upon to decide is whether the in
terest and the principal or merely the
principal comprises the bonded debt. If
the court holds that the interest must be
counted I'm addition to the principal, then
II will probably develop that many cities
in the state have exceeded the per cent
provision OF the constitution.
Public Property Decision.
When the question of the public proper
ty fund was UP before the supreme court
last January 1t was held by the court
that the matured interest on the bonds
was a part Of the public debt. Two of the
justices of the court dissented from the
majority opinion of the court. Judge John
S. Gambler, who was judge of the superior
court when the case was before him,
held that the interest. the matured inter-
est. was a part of the bonded debt and
that the public property fund which
was being held in the treasury for the
payment Of the bonded debt could be used
to pay the interest on that debt.
The present case. however, is said TO
contain a different question in some re-
spects. Which question relates to past due
interest. or interest that shall accrue.
What the Code Says.
The section of the code relating to the
matter and which are cited in the. briefs
filed by the attorney for Rolf are as fol-
lows:
Section 5Ss3-The debt hereafter incur
red by any county. municipal corporation,
or political division of this state, except
as in this constitution provided for shall
not exceed. per cent of the assessed
value of all the taxable property therein,
and no such county, municipality, or divis-
ion shall incur any new debt except for
temporary loan or loans to supply casual
deficiencies of revenue. not TO exceed one
NTH of one per centum of the assessed
value of taxable property therein with
out the assent of two-thirds of the quail
fed voters thereof at an election for that
purpose, to be held as may be prescribed
by law: but any city, the debt of which
does not exceed per centum of the as
sessed value of the taxable property at
the time Of the adoption of this constitu-
ton, may be authorized by law to in
crease at any time the amount of said debt
per cent upon such assessed valuation.
The next section referring to the case
which is 5SS4 says:
ANY county, municipal corporation or
political division of this state which shall
incur any bonded indebtedness under the
provisions OF this constitution shall at or
before the time of so doing provide for
the assessment and collection Of an an
nual tax sufficient in amount to pay the
principal and interest Of said debt within
- years from the date of the mourning
- .~HI a.aZ - @Iw4