The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1914-10-23
-yr PUNCHED BOND ORDINANCE

70 the Editor Oh Inc ocai" D"inei
ABSENCE from the city prevented an
rrIer reply to your criticism of my
,ubIished article under the above
ss.a,ug. / will modestly pass over
ne -bouqusts' you cast in the intro
auetory of your editorial, and in re-
,oru shower upon you roses, lilies,
I'd vioIets, in equal profusion for
rour adroit editorial and able defense
- The propositions had conceived to
h wholly indefensib;e.
FIRST. let me set you right as to my
..fs,ude on bond issues and public
,mnrorements generally. You seek
a make It appear that am chronic
Mixer as to such matters. Now,
that are the facts? There has never
,seu bond issue for public improve
ments In Ocala that did not favor
md earnestly advocate. BONDS 8o-
.bs uurchase of electric light plant;
hopds for the purchase of water
xorks: and the other issue, known as
ueneral bonds, all received my vote
md hearty support. / also favored
hands for the new court house, and,
xhen this failed, advocated the levy
d building tax to run through a
series OF years, from which taxes the
court house was constructed and the
grounds improved and beautified.
You also say that / opposed the
having of Fort King Avenue. This is
true only in part. / favored the paw
Ing Of this street to the summit OF
the hill, believing that it was a neces-
siy in order to adequately dispose OF
surface drainage, but though then and
think now that, as the remainder OF
the distance was comparatively level,
he ordinary macadamized street,
which was torn out, could have been
extended and made entirely adequate,
thus leaving the extra amount expend-
ed available for use on some other
street subject to like gullies and
washOuts. | entertained no idea OF
Tesorting to injunction proceedings,
as you charge, but, on the contrary,
when my objections did not prevail
voluntarily constructed and paid for
the curbing in front of my property,
Although the same had not been pre-
vlougiy required by ordinance, in
order that the work might proceed
without delay, and paid promptly as
an abutting property owner my pro-
rata part Of the street assessment.
This | believe disposes of all you
may have said regarding my personal
attitude towards public improve
ments. If there is any merit in the
/ objections l have urged in the article
! you criticise, it cannot be minimized
/ BY attributing to me an attitude |
I have never assumed.
\ You proclaim the glad tidings that
more and more this is getting to be
government of the people, by the
people, and for the people" Now, |
seriously doubt that this is the case
when applied locally. The very ordi-
nance under discussion says to the
people, in effect, you sail take all
mat we are handing out to you,
whether you want it or not, or you
snail have nothing" and the surprise
mat many who, like the peer
fss leader" have always been the
hampton of the rights of the people,
1enow most ably advocating this OPP
POSING doctrine.
lou assert as one of the reasons
WY the remainder fthe bonds here
uore authorized for water works
should not be negotiated and made
asalnable. the following
inese bonds run for a period of
uHty years. and no provision was
uaae to invest the sinking funds in
my interest bearing paper, and neces-
atay would result in loss to the
IeIiy.s
4 me best and conclusive answer to
Als Is to quote from the water works
~umance itself. as follows:
/ section s: The said city treasurer
'aah' upon the recommendation of
~s trustees, and by and with the adj
zee and direction of the city council.
-0n time to time, apply all moneys
salen may come into his hands, for
= redemption or payment of said
s0aus, to the purchase of said bonds.
any part thereof, or shall, under
= same conditions. invest said
~0neys in bonds of the United States,
Z u state, county or municipal bonds,
may to the said city council seem
Oe most desirable"
VOW, compare this with section 8