Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1909-11-10
Entered Mt the Newport News va"
postofflce as Second-Ciass matter.
WEDNESDAY. NOVEMBER 10. 1908
QUESTION AS TO LEGALITY OF
rAE SALE OF PAVING BONDS.

HE SALE OF THS'No
II is exceedingly unfortunate. to say
the least, that Alderman kelium
should have seen MT TO bring into
question the legality OF the sale OF
the city's recently issued paving
bonds to the Citizens Il Marine. bahk'
Inst what the result of the alderman
action will be remains to be seen. rms
paper. not being court. cannot give
a legal opinion upon the question IN
volved but IL fails to see how arr
good end can be accomplished. ana
10 sorry that member OF the couh-
ell should have raised what may prove
TO be trouble making point. with, APP
parently. no better object In view
than personal reveng upon fellow
councilman.
President ID s Sones. OF the COM
mon council. is a director and vice.
president of the Citizens a. Marine
hank. Because of this fact. Mr.. KEEL
lum claims that the action OF the
council in selling paving bonds to that
bank about a year ago was contrary
10 law. and that Mr. Jones should be
required to forfeit to the common
wealth $4,000. In the resolution OIL
fercd at the meeting of the aldermen
last night. MIR. Kellum quoted the
section OF the state code relative 10
couucilmen or other officers being iof-
hidden TO have interest in. contract
with. or claim against their city APP
parently he bases his contention upon
that part Of the section which says
NO officer OF city. who alone or
with others is charged with the duty
of auditing. settling. or providing oy
levy or otherwise. for the payment OF
claims against such city. shall. by con-
tract, directly or indirectly. become
the owner OF or interested in any
claim against such city. Every suen
contract or sub-contract shall be VOID.
end. II any such claim DE paid. the
amount paid. with interest. may De
recovered back by the city within two
years after payment. by action or
motion in the Circuit or Corporation
or Hastings Court. having jurisd'e-
ton over said city.
To the mind of a layEian, II would
appear that II the paving bonds con
stitute such a claim as is contempist-
cd In the language OF the statute, then
he bonds may be declared void On
the point raised by Mr. Kellum. But
lust how Mr.. Kellum proposes TO col
;ect $4,000 from Mr.. Jones does not
appear. The statute says IF any such
claim be paid. etc" This claim. " II
is a claim as contemplated by the
law, will not mature for many years
to conc. The bank has done the pay
ing. not the city. and the $4,000 has
been put into street paving. There
fore. even II the contention that the
sale Of the bonds was Illegal and that
vr Jones should be required TO pay
10 the city any amount expended. ne
wcrld Be liable. at the most. for only
such sans a. have been paid TO the
hank in fnteres, On the bonds.
Though there has been no time 70
seek legal advice on the subject. tbs
paper Is very much inclined to the be-
lief that the word claims employed
IN the statute was never intended TO
mean municipal bonds. n the courts
should rule otherwise. the sale Of the
binds 70 the bank may be declared
void. and Il Is possible that such
amounts a. have been paid by the city
In interest viii have 10 b. forfeited
10 the commonwealth. But the idea
that the president Of the common
council VIII have 10 forfeit S5o.ooo on
soccunt a the thing Is utterly prepcs-
terous Probably Mr. Keilum himself
d fully svare Of this.
u Is peculiarly unfoTiusate tina