Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1904-05-21

In other words the city council in the
year 1904, by the passage of the sec
tons vetoed cannot bind the city as to
any Indebtedness not already provided
for BY the annual appropriation bill
passed in the year 1908 for. the fiscal
year ending August 81, 1904, and Ger.
tainly this council cannot anticipate
the expenditure Of the revenues of the
city for q period Of twenty years by an
ordinance which by its very terms
does not become effective until the
present term Of Office Of each member
Of this council has expired. I also call
your attention to the following langu-
age contained in the said. case Of Rob-
erts VS.. City of Fargo: "Such limita-
tions have been found by experience
to be necessary to prevent extrava-
gance, are remedial in their nature,
are based upon the wise policy of pay.
Ing as you go, and ought therefore, to
be construed and applied to secure
the end sought. It is q matter of his
tory ,fnot only in our own state, but in
most of the states, that before the
adoption Of these safeguards the
credit of our cities was greatly i'm
paired by outstanding liabilities, Great
ed by reckless disregard Of ability to
discharge obligations extravagant1y
or injudiciously incurred. These pro-
visions OF city charters are in har-
mony with the policy of the state.
They were all intended to put the
state, the counties, and the cities upon
a cash basis Our supreme court
does not exaggerate the dangers to
which cities are liable il unwise mu-
nicipal legislation by drawing upon
the future resources and discounting
the future revenues Of cities. 1T is
much easier to contract Indebtedness
than to meet the day Of liquidation, re,
CARELESS Of statutory limitations, or
changing conditions, and uncertain
revenues. AS indicated our state. laws
relating to cities, and their financial
administration, do not contemplate the
execution Of contracts for a period ex
ceeding one. year because aporopria-
tons therefore can be made to include
the expenses Of one year only and no
contract is permitted until the cores
ponding appropriation to meet the In.
5dcbtedness contemplated is also made.
& II it were lawful to make the con-
tract called for in section the said sesl
ton Is Objectionable because the rate
to be paid by the city therein provided
for each hydrant is, in my opinion, ex-
cessive. BY this section the city Is
compelled to pay for hydrants, come
fourteen in number. which may not be
needed. The city In all fairness
should have the option Of determining
the number Of hydrants required for
fire protection within it's limits and an
ordinance which compels the pay
ment Of unnecessary hydrants should
not meet favor. and should not delude
any one that the ordinance is more
favorable than the present city con-
tract providing for a higher rental Of
q lesser number Of hydrants actually
needed. s 3s., sS%
Section 8 Of the ordinance directing
the mayor to enter into q contract is
as Objectionable as section 8, and for
the same reasons. IA 1t n
1T IL with reluctance and because I
am impelled by a sense Of Official duty
that veto the part Of section 2. and
sections and q Of the proposed ordi-
nance; but am pleased to be able to
return to you the said ordinance grant
ing the license. and franchise asked
tor duly approved. By
Respectfully submitted,
II II. REGISTER.
Dated May -. 1904. Mayor.