The Ocala evening star. [volume] (Ocala, Fla.) 1895-1943, 1914-10-20
PUNCHED BOND ORDINANCE
TO one city counell Of oeala:

htl1l6 lot uIIn 10 give 1t SQGn consul
Grafton as he may deem proper IN
advance of your meeting which I am
informed will be held tomorrow,
TUESDAY night. at which time
understand that you will endeaFor TO
dissolve the combination feature Of
the bond ordinance and provide for
vote on each project separately.
This is indicated by the comunica-
ton of Mr.. Roess, III the Banner Of
the 18th inst, vsse after defending
the policy of ib- sach .ng. saws:
However, nee THE III s seems
TO have crit: ised the IN hing OF
the bonds mere severely than any
thing else IN his bond Issue, the
matter was bro ght UP informally at
a meeting OF tn council last night
and / believe that, az a result Of this
discussion. every voser will re given
an opportunity 10 vote for or AGAINST
each and every proposition Sc aTate-
lay. !"
In the same iss.e Of the Banner
the associate city nsel. Mr.
Hampton, is quoted as Sc wing
An Investigation of the hori-
ties clearly show that an ordinan s
may provide for submitting as many
propositions as the council desires,
for which the city is authorized 10
bond, and that all may be provided
for in one ordinance; may be called
under one call, and voted at one
election bg the use of one ballot. but
the ballot must specify the different
purposes, and the voter given am OPP
portunity of voting for or against
any one of the purposes, and have
found no, rsase holding 70 the con-
trary."
This proposition is undoubtedly
sound, and is In strict accordance
with the views j expressed In my
first article published I'M the Star
of the 10th and the Banner of the
/ 1th instant, from which / quoted
as follows:
1.-The ordinance could have been
4
tied a vote at the same election, and
without additional expense on each
proposition separately, and thus al
low each project to stand or fall
when measured by It's own merits.
Tt will be observed, however, that
Mr. Hampton in his quoted interview
says that ian ordinance may pro-
wide ETC., but he does not say that
the ordinance now under considera.
ton does so provide for submitting
the propositions to be voted upon
separately, nor do believe That he
Twill give it such an Interpretation
1T Is evident that it was never Sc
INTENDED by the council. as the argu
ment thru the public press an,
otherwise has been to- 1.-THE effect tina
all improvements were needed, am
that it was wise to provide for then
Punder one issue OF 1905, 900. with th'
purposes combined, and it has neve
been suggested unbil now that undei
the ordinance the projects could b
lawfully voted upon separately, an
a bond issue provided for less tina
the aggregate amount of $3O5, 00l
for tire combined purposes:
A mere reading Of the ordfnamc
providing for the contemplated bon,
| issue. and under which the bond
are TO be issued, if authorized
will show clearly that the council
asks for authority 10 make q bon
issue of 1905 900 under the provis
ions of the ordinance. to be apprc
: priated or distributed to the variou
Ipurposes mentioned therein There
i Inothing whatever in the ordinanc
!, either asking or providing fo
e authority to issue bonds in an
7 other amount, or for any one pu1
: Ipose. to the exclusion of any othe
purpose mentioned The bond issu
s is combined, and the purposes al
combined with a specification as
n what amount of the aggregate issl
d Ishall be distributed or appropriate
d to the several purposes respectivel
Isl To further sustain my contentic
l. in this regard submit brief anal
II sis of the ordinance as follows:
la. The title says: An ord
D. nance to provide for the issuance
ID bonds of the City OF Ocala to Il
,r amount of $305, 000.' (Here f
Of lows the several purposes al
IL the amount to he appropriated
~ distributed to each). Also TO SUI
u NIT to the registered voters of sa
r City of Ocala the question of issuil
s, said bonds-for the said amount
of $500, OOO.''
of OBJ. Section one directs the ma
r, or to make proclamation orderi'
an election: submitting to t