The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-06-20
BIG WARD GRAB WITH
MILLION IN JACK POT
hartman Pollard Shows Why Street Paving
Rider Should Not Be Added to Bond Issue
So Board Reconsiders and Will
Clip It Off.

Discussion of parliamentary rules
and the reading of opinions by the
City Attorney took up the better part
of the special meeting of the Board
of Aldermen last night, when the
question OF the new bond issue OF
s1,40o.00o and the amendment OF Az
derman Gunst for an additional a.
100000 for grading and paving was
laid on the table to be acted upon at
q special meeting which Will be held
Friday night
Before the motion to reconsider was
made communication from City At
torney Pollard was read. in which he
said that the ordinance as passed at
the last meeting Of tho Board of AL
dermen was Illegal since tho amend
inent was passed on the night 1t was
introduced. not having gone through
the regular channels He advised that
motion for reconsidera ton BIO passed
by the Board. and that the measure
be placed upon the table for three
days and then taken up as II intro
duced last night. Several other modes
of procedure were advanced by mem
bers OF the Board, but the chair ruled
on the side OF the City Attorney. No
one opposed the move for reconsider-
alton.
Why 1t Should Not Pnss.
Interest in the measure brought out
many Councilmen, not members OF the
Board. among them Chairman II. X.
Pollard. Jr., of the Finance Committee,
who presented a communication from
his committee setting forth reasons
why the ordinance should not be
passed with the amendment. Advo
Gates Of the rider protested that the
paper was out OF order. but II was
ruled part Of the business in spite
OF heated objections
The communication was addressed
to the Board and is signed Tor the
committee by The chairman. Follow
Ing Is the text:
1T is needless to say that the Com
mittee on Finance was a little Jared
at the action OF the Board or Alder
men In amending the bond ordinance
as passed by the Council by lacking on
tl.ooo.o0O for street improvements.
We wish 10 call the attention OF
the Board 10 the following reasons
why, In our opinion. the proposed
amendment should not he adopted:
al. The Engineers Department is IN
no condition to handle this work with
It's annual appropriations for streets,
sewers and such like, made in the
budget for this year Of about s350.o0o.
the large unexpended balance OF some
s500.o00 for sewers in the annexed ter
rltory. and the building of Mayo's
Bridge. That department is already
under the lash. and UP to the neck In
work, Then, IL they had enough force
in the Office to handle the work the
contractors who do city work have all
they can handle. If we give them ad-
ditional work IT just means that we
will pay more for the work than 1t
should cost
Would Have Two Sets.
"2. To issue thirty -fohr-year bonds
for street improvements. the best OF
which either wear out or become obso-
lete In twenty years, means that tho
city might have out and be paying In
terest and redemption for two sets OF
bonds for improvements on the same
street al the same time. we know OF
one city of about 10000 population.
that has three sets OF bonds out
standing for paving the same street.
| Draw your own conclusions from this
20. The condition OF the bond mar
| ket Is not at all favorable for the sale
of bonds. The Committee on Finance
would not have considered for mo-
ment advising a bond Issue of s1.4oO.-
900 al this time II 1t had not have
known that the sinking fund was in a
position TO sustain the city's credit
to that extent: but when you add
another million what support the
bonds would receive from that source
would not be of much avail.
IF the ordinance is pa ssed as
amended It will take practically 33 per
cent. OF the city's revenue to pay in
terest and redemption on her debt If