The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1903-09-27
HObART'S BONDS
ARE REJECTED
Liabilities Exceed the Four
Per Cent Legal Limit
OTHER IRREGULARITIES
Where Lies the Blame Is the
Question Asked.

Ond attempt TO issue water "othS jonas
has ended in failure. Attorneys having
given an opinion that the bonds cannot
be legally issued.
Regarding the matter the News-Repub-
Mean says:
The records regarding the proceedings
preliminary to the issuing of $4,000 water
and sewer bonds by this city have been
submitted to the best municipal attorneys
in Chicago and it is their poinion that.
upon this record the bonds cannot be
legally issued, and for this reason the
bond BUYERS refuse to buy the bonds.
These attorneys hold that as the bonds
exceed the 4 per cent debt limitation,
st is necessary TO issue them under the
act of congress. which permits cities hav-
ing a bona fide population of leo accord
ing to the last school census, TO issue
bonds in excess of the 4 per cent debt
limitation, provided this question is sub
naitted to vote of the people and it re-
ceives an affirmative vote of two-thirdS
of ell the qualified electors in the city,
who are owners of real or personal pro-
perty, subject 10 taxation in the city.
The act provides: ION the question of
this issue of said bonds. no person shall
be qualified to vote except he be in all
respects a qualified elector and owner of
real or personal property subjeet TO taxa
tion within the municipality
It is pointed out that the election no
tice does not in any way designate what
electors can vote on the bonds, although
the act especially qualities such cleo
tors, that the election notice given was
the same as would be used for general
election. at which all electors in the city
would vote; and that all qualified cleo
tors. irrespective Of whether they were
owners Of real or personal property in
the city were allowed to vote on the ques-
ton of issuing bonds
The law provides that two thirds Of
the qualified voters as above described
shall vote afirmatively for the issuance
of said bonds, then the mayor and town
council shall issue the same, and not
otherwise.
The returns Of the canvassing board
makes no statement whatever as to the
number of electors who are taxpayers.
nor does it state that two thirds OF the
qualified electors, who are owners of real
or personal property, voted in favor Of
these bonds.
In order to ascertain who are qualified
to vote on the bond proposition. il is
pointed out that it will be necessary to
compare the registration lists with the
assessors list, and ascertain how many
Of the names of the latter are owners
of property subject 10 taxation.
II is not the intention OF the law that
two-thrds of those voting should vote
in favor Of the bonds, but. that two
thirds of the tax-payng electors should
be Interested the issuing of the bonds
TO such an extent that they are willing
To come out and vote afiirmatively in
favor thereof
Editorially the paper says under the
caption. where Lies the Blame?':
Twice in the last six months have
the citizens of Hobart been called on to
cast their vote for the issuance Of water
works and sewer bonds. and twice have
the voters claimed tneir desire to have
the same
The first election was void and the
bonos could not find market
Another election was called. at great
expense to the city, to again vote o nthe
same proposition. The people and the
voters voiced unanimously the building
of waterworl1s. They had acted on the
suggestion Of the secretary of the in
terror, who approved the action
Twice have the voters at the polls
prayed for waterworl1s. Twice the voters
have been denied waterworks. and $780,
coo worth of their property went up in
flames
Where lies the blame?
The people have done their duty.
I'VE are no nearer waterworks now
than we were over two years ago. and
the business men of our town are paying
from 10 to 1919 per cent insurance Fig
uerd up, the high Insurance rates alone
would build waterworks system in one
years time that the city would feel proud
OF
THE voters Of the city are again to be
called upto TO vote on the same question
they have twice before voted on. and
under the present condition of affairs
the people have no more assurance now
that the matter will be handled correct
~ than they had at the two preceding
elections.
The mayor city council ana the city
attorney of Hobart handled the matter
before, and both times proved themselves
incompetent.
by virtue of their Offices they win
handle It again What assurance have
the people that they viii not b,uneer
again. and We still be deprived of water
works?
IL these men are incompeten, WHY
don't they resign? They do not belong
there. city the size OF Hobart should
have waterworks. and she sould ahve
officers who are Competent to conduct
municipal affairs.
If the blame for these failures can
be traced TO any individual upon whom,
the administration has relied for counsel
ana guidance that individual whoeve,
he may be, should be removed from ONCE
and the services OF some one secured
whose Judgment and counsel can be re.
he'd on.
TWO failures in succession show ths
utter incompetency on the Part of the
responsible parties. and the people viii
not have faith 20 trust tham again
PROPERTY DAMAGE GREAT
Storm That SWEPT Over -c.r &c..