The log cabin Democrat. [volume] (Conway, Ark.) 1908-current, 1911-06-03
REIMBURSEMENT
ACT NOT VETOED
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
MEASURE WHICH GOVERNOR
KILLED RELATED TO RE-
CEIVERSHIPS.
spo -'"' 70 the Log Cabin Democrat.

Spo-'"' 70 the Log Cabin Democrat
Contrary to the first impression Of
many Conway citizens interested in
the act providing for the annual re-
adjustment of assessments in i'm
provement districts, it was not this
measure to which Governor Donaghey
applied the veto, but an act relating
to receiverships in defaulting i'm
porvement districts. Much local in
terest is felt in the readjustment
measure, which, though not a local
bill, was the outgrowth of a demand
felt in the organization of the Con-
way waterworks district, and was
drafted by the local city attorney.
The governors veto message on the
other bill is in part, as follows:
"Senate Bill No. 522.-I herewith
return without my consent and ap-
proval senate bill No, 522, the same
being "A bill for an act to be entitled
an act to amend sections 1864, 1861,
5,675, 5,721, .5,720 of Kirby's Digest,
and for other purposes, which bill is
vetoed for the following reason:
Il am advised by lawyers who have
carefully studied this bill that it con-
tains some provisions which are bene-
fetal, yet there seems to be objections
which outweigh the advantages. Sec
ton 6 authorizes the board of com
missioners of an improvement district
to pledge all uncollected assessments,
of the district to pay any money Dor
rowed by the district, and provides
that such pledge shall confer upon
the trustee named therein, or on the
holders of the bonds secured thereby,
all teh rights that would be possessed
by any holder of collateral securities,
and in case of default it may be fore
closed by suit in chancery in the same
way; in which suit the chancery SQUIRT
may appoint a receiver to collect such
assessments as is provided in the case
of drainage Districts This bill pro-
poses to give the chancery courts the
power which the federal court of equi-
ty for the Eastern district of Arkan-
sas undertook to assume in a certain
case which was appealed to the United
States court of appeals and was there
reversed upon the ground that the
remedy at law was adequate and that
equity has no jurisdiction to entertain
bill for a receiver of a defaulting
improvement district. The bill I'M
dertakes to enlarge the jurisdiction of
the chancery courts in this state. The
supreme court of Arkansas has held
that the jurisdiction of the chancery
court under the existing constitution
can neither be enlarged or diminished.
The bill provides that the board may
pledge all 'uncollected assessments
and in case of default the pledge may
be foreclosed by suit in chancery,
in which suit the court may appoint
receiver. In other words, if any tax
payer makes default in payment of his
assessment the bondholder can go into
chancery and have a receiver appoint
ed to collect all uncollected assess
ments due in the future, and, if neces-
sary, to sue all the taxpayers. Thus,
by the default of one taxpayer, all of
the taxpayers in the district become
liable to be sued in chancery and the
district might thereby incur heavy eX-
penses which would fall upon the tax
payers. Fees of the receiver, of the
receivers attorney and of the courts
clerk would be chargeable upon the
body of the taxpayers Of the district.
In view of this large expense the cost
of improvements would be greatly ill
creased. Property owners all over the
state might be compelled to pay taxes
to federal receiver at the capital up
on pain of losing their property. The
fear Of being sued in that court might
deter many property owners from
signing petitions for local improve
ments, and thus many desirable inn
provements throughout the state
would be impeded and INSTRUCTED. The
court of appeals recently held that the
remedy at law to collect these inn
provement assessments is adequate.
Such remedy is simple and generally
understood by the taxpayers. They
know to whom the taxes are payable,
and how much. The remedy is mex
pensive.
"The taxpayer understands, when
he pays his money to the collector,
that practically every dollar of it
goes to liquidate the districts indebt-
edness. He would have no such as
surance if the money were paid to a
receiver appointed by court, since he
L 4. .f l.a