Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1917-01-31
To The Herald :

In reply To your kind offer some DAYS
ago, rendering me the use Of your valuable
paper "a express my views on certain legi~-
lation of interest 10 my district. wish now
To take advantage therof i'm order TO in
form the people of my district a to the
questions involved in House Bill No. 23S.
being the new irrigation district bill which
has been reported favorably by the Com
mlttee on Irrigation, of which am chair
man. After amending the bill IN several
particulars and incorporating most Of the
amendments suggested by Judge +. W. Sea-
bury of Brownsville tall of which amend
ments were for the purpose Of strength
ening the bill the change in the name Of
the present law making il water Improve
ment District" instead of ''lrrigation Dis
trIct' was made; il being argued that such
a change IL beneficial IN creating market
for the sale Of the bonds, a. the irrigation
district bonds have fallen into disrepute
in the financial ceEters of the United
States. | have letter frcm represcn-
tative of large 4oan company in It.
Louis stating that If this change j. made.
the company will he in the market To buy
the bonds of the several irrigation dis
tricts in the Valley.
The bill provides way by which all the
irrigation districts heretofore organized
may change their name To water improve
mcnt districts" and recall their bond issues
and reissue them H. "water Improvement
bonds" 1t also provides that districts
bar t,f, u-las har
after be organized, may refund their bond
issues for bonds lesser rates Of inter
est. all Of which }ou can readily see will
he beneficial to thd, tax payers of said dis
trlcts.
COMMISSIONERS ARE LIMITED.
The committee incorporated several
amendments in the bill. one of which was
to limit the amount of commission to he
paid to the persons selling the bonds. The
original bill permits the directors 10 pay a
commission to persons selling the bonds
and did not limit the amount 10 be paid. II
was claimed that To limit this commission
would operate greatly against the sale Of
the bonds. The committee disagreed with
this contention and believed that to leave
this power entirely IN tho hands of the di-
and encourage directors 10 be dishonest IN
and encourage directors 10 he rlshone~t IN
such transactions by allowing greater
commission. say ten per cent, and then par
tcipate in the division Of the spoilS. The
committce made maximum commission Of
two and onc-half per cent. ! was one OF
the members of this committee that was
strongly adverse TO permitting a greater
percentage of commission than two and
one-half per cent In fact, ! believe that
ii il higher percentage than should he
allowed. as usually the fees for such sery-
ices never exceed one and one-half pei
cent.
WOULD REMOVE ALL TEMPTATION.
The committee has struck out of the bill
the section permitting the board of di-
rectors 10 sell bonds al less than their par
value and accrued interest. We believ,
such power would. in the first place, put
a temptation in the path of the directors to
sell the bonds nj less than their par value IN
every ease and leave a loop-hole for graft
The committee does not believe that ever,
director i dishonest but thoroughly ha-
ieve> in the principle that the best way tc
insure honesty j. to remove temptation and
for that reason the committee was unani-
nous in the action of striking out thai
section which permitted directors to sci
the bonds AT less than their par value.
Another amendment which | contendet
for in the committee and which the com.
miiiee incorporated in the bill, is pro
vision that when any irrigation distric