The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1906-09-20


titioned for indefinitely by the city coun-
ell There is no time limit within which
subsequent election can be had. SO that
they might be called under the provisions
of the bill regularly at from 30 to 90
day intervals, and the residents of the
territory in question be greatly harassed
| in the premises. II may be argued here,
as in other places, that no reasonable city
| council would take such action. And this
! Is true. But in answer to such argument
1t might also be said that citizens of the
| community ought as far al possible to
be protected from the possibility of harm
| from unreasonable governmental bodies.
If election Is the proper method OF set
Ting whether or not territory shall be
annexed to the city of Birmingham, or any
other city, then the people of the terri
tory in which the election Is to be held
should be protected from unnecessary and
unreasonable harassment.
AS to paragraph of section 2: fear
that l do not exactly catch its meaning.
I says: The plat or map filed with the
'certifled copy of the resolution as required
herein shall show the boundary of the
territory proposed to be taken into the
city, all of which territory need not be
| contiguous to the boundary of any other
city or town, but Is not to embrace any
! territory within the corporate limits OF
another city or town"
| Undesirable COnoltloH'
1t will be understood that the map
here spoken of Is determinative of the
| territory to be annexed a this paragraph
be accepted at what its meaning seems to
be on it's face 1t would seem that territory
| not contiguous to a city might be an
nexed by it under its provisions. And
| if this be true, 1t would open the way
| 1t seems to be, to an undesirable condi-
| ton, viz: one where we might have a
fa1 rift
or practically inside of, the Incorporated
city, or we might even have our own
| city limits extending. around and embrac-
| ing the limits of another municipality. 1t
seems to me that we already have enough
or too much of this condition in ex-
istence now for the proper drainage,
sanitation and policing of certain parts
of the city Or, even worse this provision
might result in the Incorporation into the
city of a portion of territory widely sep
arate from the general and logical cor
porate limits.
Section provided generally for the
transfer into a city of over 25,000 in
habitants of part of another city or
town. As provided here a portion of an
outlying town might be brought into the
non taxing district of Birmingham, and
yet Birmingham be compelled to assume
a. portion of the bonded Indebtedness of
the outlying town in proportion to the
words, to give a concrete illustration:
Half of Avondale might be brought into
Birmingham as a non-taxing district;
that is, no municipal property taxes could
be levied on the territory annexed; and
yet Birmingham might be saddled with
half or even more than half of the bond
ed Indebtedness of the town of Avondale,
and be compelled to pay 1t, principal and
interest, from taxes levied in the taxing
district of the city. Such an eventuality
does not seem to me to be desirable But
even If such a course be thought proper,
1t occurs to me this portion of the bill is
open to the objection of being loosely
drawn Parties are designated who are
to say what proportion OF the bonded In
debtedness of the town whose territory
is annexed shall be borne by the annex
ing city. But no basis for fixing such
amount, such as taxable values within
| the territory annexed, is suggested. The
matter is left entirely to the judgment OF
what might be called the commission or
board of arbitrators designated in the
bill, and no appeal from their judgment is
provided Thus great hardship might be
worked.
Question of Bonds.
There is another point that must be
considered in this connection: Bonds of a
city are contracts protected by the con-
sttutional guarantees of the constitution
bama. The Legislature cannot take away
from the bondholders of a town their
right to satisfy their bonds, principal and
interest. out of certain revenues and taxes
and fail to make a sufficient substitute.
This question was thoroughly litigated
by the city of Mobile, under one of Its
former corporate names, with one Wat
son, the case having been decided in the
supreme court of Alabama and in the SUI
preme court of the United States, the
latter about January, 1886.
AS before stated, the board of arbitra
ton would say what would be just or
fair proportion, for instance, of the bonds
of Avondale, if 1t has bonds, which should
be assumed by the city of Birmingham
upon the annexa ton of the part of the
territory of Avondae by the city Of
! Birmingham.
Suppose the arbitrator, either ignor-
antly or fraudulently, should say upon
the annexation of half of AvoAdale that
the city of Birmingham should assume
| three-quarters of the bonded Indebted
ness of the city of Ayondale, when as a
matter of fact the half of Avondale an
nexed should only include one-fourth the
taxable values of the town? Suppose,
then, the city of Birmingham should de-
fault in the payment of the principal or
interest of these bonds from inability to
pay? Or suppose that one-half of three
fourths of the most valuable property in
Avondale being annexed to the city of
Birmingham, the arbltrators should ig-
norantly or fraudulently say that the city
of birmingham should not justly assume
but a small amount of the bonds Of the
city of Avondale; and suppose the town
of Avondale should then default in the
payment OF the bonds, either interest or
principal. In either OF these cases, or In
other cases which might be multiplied to
some extent. would not the courts be
compelled to declare some of this legisla-
ton, or at least the awards of the ar
bitrators, void. upon the suit of the bond
holders, judgment by them and an
application by them for a mandan1us for
the levy of taxes or other proper rem
edy? Might 1t not possibly involve us in
considerable doubtful and undesirable lit
fgation? Might 1t not even put an i'm
possible condition upon the city?
Section provides for the conditions and
methods of transferring territory from the
non-taxing to the taxing district Here
discrimination Is made between the large
land owner and the small, between min
Ing. manufacturing or Industrial plans or
constructions, railroad, street railroad and
other quasi public property and private
property The scheme is this, as outlined:
A large territory may be taken in by
the city into the non-taxng district Aft
er five years the small owner, If his prop
erty is not devoted to quasi public use
may be taxed. No property devoted to
quasi public use may be taxed until 1867;
and the owner of ten acres of land, where
nobody resides on the land, can never be
taxed, except with their consent, for that
land. The mere statement of the first dis