The Savannah morning news., 1902-01-30
MAY NOT ASSESS 1T.
Continued from Tenth Page.)

CONTINUED from Tenth Page)
lowed was reached. "Mr. Adams tells
me-" said the Mayor, "that he did read
all the bill before Council, save that
section which was the repeating clause.
l was under the impression that he
had read only that section relating to
the new lines that were to be estab-
lished, and thought there was another
clause than the repeating clause that
he had not read. i do not consider
thaE any blame rests upon Mr..
Adams"
what Mr. Adams Said of 1t.
Mr.. Adams was seen for a state
ment of his position in the matter. II
was never asked by the Mayor or any
alderman at any time" said Mr..
Adams, "to put in the bill extending
the city limits a provision exempting
the property from taxation for three
years, or for any other term, or any
thing modifying in any way the i'm
mediate effect of the bill. / was never,
at any time, given to understand that
this was desired or expected. If any
action was had, or under standing
reached, at any caucus, 1t was not in
my presence or hearing and this action
was never communicated to me in any
way.
81 drew the bill as l was requested
to draw 1t by the chairman of the
committee who had the measure in
charge. At the meeting of the Com
mittee of the Whole, held on the even
ing of the Council meeting of Nov.
13, the bill as prepared by me was
read and discussed. The whole of 1t
was read, except that, when / got to
the second, or repeating clause, l prob
ably said Section 2: Repeating
clause Outside of this repeating
clause there was but one section, and
that was taken up in defining the pro-
posed extended limits. The word tax
alton was not used in 1t, because tax
alton resulted by operation of law.
When 1 read, therefore. this section, /
read the whole bill / did not imagine
that anybody present was under any
sort of mistake or misapprehension
about it.
81 had no objection to putting in a
provision, eXempting the property for
three years, and would have done so
had this request been conveyed to me
in any way, although my legal opinion
was and is that such a provision, IL it
were assailed in the court, would be
held to be illegal. The bill was not
read in open Council, because it had
been read before the Committee of the
Whole. There was a meeting either
of the Committee of the Whole or of
some caucus, within few days of my
leaving for Atlanta the night of Nov.
81, to convey to the Legislative Com
mittee the views of Council regarding
the passage of this bill. 1t was then
discussed again and IL was probably
read again. Certain 1t is 1t was before
the gentlemen present. There was no
intimation to me at that times that
Council desired provision postpon-
ing taxation.
"You will find in the issue of the
Morning News of Nov. %, a notice of
the departure on the night before of
Mai. Ryals, Capt. Blum and the city
attorney. for the purpose of meeting
the Legislative Committee, and quo
tation from q statement that / made
to q representative of the paper.
Among other things I say, that have
heard that Capt Blum is willing to have
his land taken into the corporate linn
it's, provided there is a restriction at
tached. to the effect that the land shall
not be taxed until streets are put
through 1t, but this may be an error.
My opinion is that, since the consti-
tuition of 1877, the only way to exempt
property from municipal taxation is
to leave It out of the corporate limits
'Some days after our return, Capt.
Blum and Mai. Ryals met Council, or
the members of the board, and dis
cussed the matter. and 1t was then
agreed that the bill be amended so as
to leave out their property, II being
again stated that the only way to ex-
cmpt them was to exclude them. We
had before us the clipping containing
the proceedings Of Council, the bill was
discussed and II was then amended,
Mr.. Dixon writing on the margin Of
the slip the proposed amendment. A
resolution was afterwards adopted re-
questing the representatives and SEN
ator to support the bill as amended.
"It never occurred to me, until some
time after the passage of the bill, that
anybody was under a misapprehension
or misunderstanding about it's purport
or effect. until the Mayor very recently,
within the last two or three weeks, said
something to me about the property
not being taxable for three years. T
then learned for the first time that he
was under this impression. told
him that there was nothing in the
bill that postponed It's operation. While
this statement indicates that the Mayor
was, I'm point OF fact, under this Inn
preston, / can only say that / am IN
no wise responsible for the impress
sion."
The Way Was 90 wait.
Hon. r. NJ. Hitch, representa- tive.
was seen about the matter. He said
that II was commonly talked In Sa-
vannah that Il would be unconstitu-
tional 90 introduce such a clause into
the bill. az had been suggested for the
p0stponement OF taxation upon the new
property. ~ the conference IN At
lanta, which was attended by the rep
resentatlves from Chatham, and by
Senator Cam. Mr. Hitch said. the fact
that there was no such clause IN the
bin was mentioned. this going 10 prove
that n had not. 90 the Mayor said.
been overlooked o. ignored. The only
way IN which the new property can
be relieved from taxation legally, Or.