The Birmingham age-herald., 1920-07-29
THE BIRMINGHAM AGEHarA1D THURSDAY, JULY 2e, 1920

| Instead. we would have suggested at
 that time that you carefully look into
 the then existing obligations and the
 sources of income from which they could be met.
 NO MONEY TO SET ASIDE This committee does not approve of ] the use of any of the proceeds of this
 bond issue for the maintenance of the county convict camps, as has been pro- posed by your board. Even though a | legal right may exist to make use of : these funds for such purpose, 1t is | certain that there is no moral right to 1 so use these funds. The people of the county did not vote these bonds to ] maintain convict camps or to repair ! our present ehert roads. To the con trary, they voted bonds with the un- derstanding that they would eliminate , the present cost of maintenance of l chert roads.
 The whole theory of the bond is-
 sue was that n portion of the road fund now useA for maintenance | was to be set aside each year and ! thus provide for interest and re- tirement of the bonds. It now ap- pears that there is no money to set aside at present in order to ~carc for the bonds and that any road maintenance for this year will have to come out of bond funds oyv- ing to the fact that the general , road fund is exhausted. Had the situation been understood, previous to the bond issue, by the individ- uals and civic organizations which
 sponsored the bond election. it is unlikely that the bond election would have been supported as sen- erousfy ns it was.
 On April 1, 1920, after proper publi- cation, bids for purchase of s2.o00. 900 of per cent Jefferson county road bonds were received from a number of reputable firms dealing in bonds. After a careful tabulation of the bids, it was decided by your board and this com mittee that the best bid submitted was that of the Alabama Bond Company. represented by MT. J. B. Weakley. Con sultation with competent and experi- enced financiers indicated that the bid submitted was a satisfactory one. as based upon the condition of the bond market at that time. The board of , revenue immediately entered into a contract with the Alabama Bond Com pany. under which the entire issue of $2, 000, 900 was to be purchased by that company under the terms and condi- tions set forth in their written pro posal of April 1.
 CONTRACT FALLS THROUGH It was not until the middle of May that we learned of the inability of the Alabama Bond Company to carry out their part of the contract They stated that they were unable to purchase the bonds on the basis of their original proposal because of an opinion rendered by Storey, Thorndike, Palmer & Dodge orT ba at n whose approval the bonds were subject. This i opinion was to the effect that the bonds should be signed by the probate judge and the county treasurer rather than by the president of the board of revenue and the county treasurer, as suggested by the county attorney No questions were raised as to the validity of the bonds or of the proceedings prior to the bond election. In order to secure a decision on the point in question, the county attorney brought the matter before the circuit court, which ruled that the bonds should be signed by the president of the board of revenue and the county treasurer. The case was then taken to the Alabama supreme court, which reversed the rule of the circuit court and decided that the bonds should be signed by the probate judge and the county treasurer.
 Immediately after this decision the board of revenue was ready to deliver the bonds signed in accordance with the decision of the supreme court and the opinion of Storey, Thorndike, Pal mer and Dodge. However, upon the day after the supreme court rendered its decision, MT. Weakley of the Ala bama Bond Company appeared before your board and stated that his company could not proceed with the purchase of the bonds under their original contract because of the fact that owing to the opinion of the attorneys mentioned above the bonds could not be sold by his company in accordance with their original plans. MT. Weakley had not previously indicated that this opinion would prevent his company from exc cutting it's contract. although some weeks had elapsed since the opinion was rendered.
 The board of revenue during this period of some six weeks had no req son to believe that the bonds would not be purchased, particularly since, early in April, a sum of $1o0,o00 had been paid to the county treasurer, which was understood to have been the first payment by the Alabama Bond Com = pany upon a temporary bond issued in return for this sum. A further con- firmation of your understanding that the deal had been partially consummated