Atlanta Georgian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1912-1939, 1913-09-23

position at Lakewood. They asked
the city government to place this
property in a position where it could
be utilized for that purpose.
The Council refused to do so of
their own accord, but proposed an
amendment to the charter, in line
with the suggestions of these citi-
zens, which should be submitted to 4
vote of the people.
This amendment was submitted to
the vote of the people and was voted
down. Hence, by this action. this
issue was entirely eliminated, and the
proposition never became a part of
the existing charter nor is 1t a part of
the revised charter.
In passing, it might be stated that
Mr.. Woodward, in his opposition to
this latter proposition. invoked the
conditions in the charter above re-
ferred to, which he then used in aid
of his opposition.
Mr.. Woodward critiCises sharply
the provisions Of the revised charter
on the subject of a fee bill. In order
to understand the exact situation and
the barrenness of his criticism, it is
proper to state what is in the exist
ing charter.
Fee Bill Explained.
Section PIP, Code 1899: The said
Mayor and General Council shall
power and authority to establish a
fee bill fcr the officers of said city,
not higher than the fees allowed the
county officers, or lower than those
allowed to justices Of the peace and
Constables of the State"
This provision, in those exact
words, has been contained in the
city charter since its original adop-
tiOn in 1874. The revised charter car
rieS the same exact language except
the following words are stricken:
For the officers of said city" The
purpose and intention of the change
being to provide that in any case
where fees are provided it should
never be for the benefit of any Off
GERS of the city, but should be for
the benefit of the city and its tax
payers. We have such fees in exist
enCe and have had for many years,
such as the - cents costs in Record
er's Court, Marshal fees for levying
and advertising property and Clerk S
fees. 1t was desirable that the right
to charge these fees should be re-
tanned but that they should never,
under any CirCums tances, be retained
by the officers of the city.
Fees for the benefit of the officers
of the city were abolished many years
ago and under this revised charter an
adjustment is made 20 conform with
this practice and, moreover. prevents
return of the former practice.
Sanitary Tax unjust"
Mr.. Woodward complains that the
revised charter proposes to abolish
the annual sanitary tax of SO per
house. This tax was abolished be-
cause of its inequality an dinjustiCe.
This annual tax of SO per house was
established in 1882 before there was
any general waterwOTkS and sewer
system in operation in the city, but
since there is a general system of
sewers and water, for which the peO-
pie have paid by taxation, this tax is
not adjusted to our present Condi-
tions.
Moreover, an arbitrary tax of SO,
without regard to the relative amount
of benefit or service, is such a mani
fest injustice to the small home own
er that it can not be defended upon
any principle Of fairness. Mr.. Wood
ward evidently desires to have this
tax retained, although its unfairness
and injustice is apparent to every
one
The portion of the proposed revised
charter, in reference to the power of
the Water Board to make contracts
for the furnishing of water. which
Mr. Woodward CritiCises so harshly,
Is the exact language Of the existing
charter and this provision has been
in the charter Of the city since, its
original enactment, and is contained
in section 81 Of the Acts Of the Cen
eral Assembly 1874, page 1913.
1t is remarkable that Mr. Wood