The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-11-07
in so acting the said committee was not act.
ms Illegally or contrary to the charter
Dead Section Of Charter.

ncfbu 5eCtiuu GA ShAttci'
"As above stated. section 81 OF the city
charter requires, that the Auditor shall an.
raily make a report of the estimates neccs-
sary. as nearly as may be. to defray the e1-
pens,e OF the city government during tho
current fiscal year etc, etc. That section
doer not require that the Auditor shall base
h,s report of the estimates upon any re-
ptrts from the different departments. He
may or may not. as he may choosN requirs
tn. departments to furnish such Information.
BY that section no Is only required to give
annually to the Council his individual opin-
ion in writing. or his report. as to what he
| ma, think will be necessary for the expenses
of the city. He 10 not required to accom-
pany that report with the reports OF the
various departments. as he 10 not even re-
CURED to obtain them
EFT is not then difficult to believe that
such report would not, and ought not, to
be of much weight with the City Council
Hence II Is that. since such procedure would
bs useless. that section has for years been
a dead le,ter-and tho Council has pursued
the only wise course of seeking the aid and
| Recommendations of Its Finance Committed.
.of course. there. should not be allowed
TO remain any dead sections In the charte::
That section should be repealed. and. Il
deemed necessary, the charter properly
amended. requiring each department to
mpke such reports annually toGthc City
Council.
From the Testimony submitted the sub
sientiala contention OF the Mayor 10. that
the Finance Committee should send to the
Council along with each draft 81 an ap-
picpriation ordinance the reports from the
various departments in its possession. so
that the Council itself could be fully In
formed as to what each department thinks
1t will need, as we'll as what the Finance
Committee thinks should be allowed to each
dcLartment, and thus have some on! cial
info rmatlon by which II can test the wis
dem of the committees recommendations
or course, that could be accomplished by =
proper requirements from the Council.
Right to Destroy Bonds
"You next enquire. Has the Mayor OF
Yys u 49, r1~ 20 1a.k-
necusiy printed bonds OF course no pro-
yis:on can be found in the city charter as
to how or by whom enormously printed
bonds should be destroyed. The existence
o: such bonds was not contemplated. and
the methods of their destruction was not
provided for.
full, within the scope OF his powers and
duties as chief Executive of the city in de-
stroying the city bonds. which were sub
1etN of your investigation. As there Is no
prescribed course of procedure in such a
case, the Mayors act should be judged By
the obligations OF his official position and
to the dangerous and improper existence Of
large amount of city bonds with coupons
! attached. Such was the situation that tho
City Treasurer felt uneasy about their ex-
istence. That they ought to have been de-
stroyed, there never has been any question.
The only dispute raised has been, who
ought to have destroyed Them Their ex-
istence was dangerous. He did not take
item into his personal charge and alone de-.
| stroy them. He acted Jointly with the
Treasurer and the City Auditor. The three
together destroyed them, and made Joint
| statement OF their act. Acting thus Jointly
was wise precauton and a fair guarantee
OF the faithfulness OF Its performance Such
procedure could not possibly Injure tho
city. but must have resulted in proper
| safeguarding OF her interests.
1T is true that ,, the Mayer should have
sbcrld have more formally reported It to
the Finance Committee, but that omission
did not In the least affect the propriety Of
his act in promptly destroying In the pres
ence OF the Auditor and Treasurer the dan
gerous securities as soon as hls attention
was called to them.
Sale of City Bonds
your third question is. I think. unhap-
pily expressed. You ask, Who Is srnpow-
cred to sell city bonds
There is no general power given In the
charter to sell city bonds--the authority 70
sell is generally given In the specific ord!-
nance authorizing their Issuance.
Fer presume what you wished to ask Is.
who had power to sell the bonds sold by
Mr.. Warren after the action OF the Finance
ECommittee on November 90. 1906 accepting
Fbid OF the4"commlssloner OF the Sinking
Fund at lol?.. See . s1,r;.I, Of evt,
arise from any question as to who had the
! right to SELL but from the contradictory
evidence as to who owned tho bonds when
| sole by Mr.. Warren, and for Whom he was
acting when he sold.
"There was an evident misunderstood ding
| Oe twe cen the Mayor and the Auditor In their
| &C nyersntons as to such sales. The Mayors
eurnest and prolonged fight for the maints-
rance Of the Sinking Fund would prevent
| ony one acquainted herewith from believ-
| inE that he Intentionally agreed to the sails
| OF any bonds belonging to that fund. It Is
Blu, fair to presume that he thought that
| tho city Auditor was selling bonds which
/ belonged TO the city, and not to the Sinking
| Fund Not only they had not been actually
| ira n sferred to that fund. but the Mayor
GAINED that he understood that the sale to
| the Sinking Fund was not OF specific
amount, but the remainder after any sales
to Others, who 1t was thought would pur-
who Did They Belong TOE
att was properly conceded by every ono
Ethat II the bonds sold belonged to the Sink
INK Fund. then there WAS not authority in
| any one to sell them.
teel has 10 decide. and upon which, pre-
sumo. you do not wish the City Attorney
opinion, ID one of fact and not OF Law
Six.. Had the bonds been sold to Sinking
Fund when Mr. Warren sold thsm? y
/ fund then they were sold In violation Of law,
| although under a msapprehenston, II they
Were the property OF the city, then the Au.
4 d!tor hatlfno power to sell unless he had
IL, Mo- ttto