New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1921-08-19
Court Must
lnsnarl City
Debt Limit
nents and gave him "frorn now mt
tocmSdaY To xustaia than,

nents and gave him from now until
loomsday to sustain them"
MIR. Craig began his side OF the debt
INIT controversy with tho statement
NAT mir. Brown has based his stand
NAT the city was overheard" on the
ollowing four assumptions:
That notes are debts and therefore
must be charged against the debt limit.
That special revenue bonds in one
'ear-that is. at tho end Of 19l7-
we're outstanding in excess OF the lin
tahons placed by the constitution
Deductions Are Questioned
That there was an insufficient deduc
non of the assets Of the water sinking
und in arriving al the net debt as dis
lnguished from the gross debt
Tha. S117, 000,0 900. which had been ex-
smpted as the result of dock and rapid
ransit improvements could not be used
or any other purpose save docks and
:apid transit bettcrme nts, and that the
ium thereof had to be deducted in ar
living st the debt margin as it is at
present.
Mr. Brown here said he had modi-
sed his views as to the special revenue
bonds, and was in doubt IA to tax
notes, and was willing to strike out
these notes from his estimate OF the
amount the city had exceeded it's debt
limit.
MIR. Craig then went into long and
technical explanation in connection
Nth the insufficient deduction of as
tets from the water sinking fund, IN
,lsting that i: was not necessary to
make the deduction as had Mr. Brown.
Coming to the SILT, 100000, he said the
money had long ago been used for
dock and rspid transit purposes and
should not be included in the debt
limit.
Mr. Brown took up the argument here
by saying that the whole matter was q
legal ques zion and that. the deductions
should not have been made even at
the direction Of the Appellate Division
pn January 81, 1913, as tho court had
no jurisdiction. lie admittod that his
.omp laint oyas against tho suFng OF the
Appellate Division and against the
manner in which the subject had been
placed before the Appellate Division
by the city officials.
Compd roller Cites Law
Mr. Craig clted Section 10, Article g.
as the provision of the constitution I'M
der which the money was excluded from
calculation Of the debt limit and the
ground upon which the Appellate Di-
vision acted. Mr.. Brown insisted that
on the ground of the same Section 10.
Article 8, the money should have
been counted in as part Of the debt
limit and so send the city "overboard."
Mr.. Craig, in. presenting this sec
ton of the aw for the record, said:
"After prescribing that the debt
limit shall not exceed 10 per cent Of
the assessed valuation, and after GER
tain exceptions winch are not mate
rial to this subject, the provision goes
ON to state, Except, further, that any
indebtedness heretofore incurred by
the city of New York for any rapid
transit or dock investment may be so
excluded proportionately to the extent
to which the current net revenue re-
ceived by such city therefrom shall
meet the interest and amortization in
stallments thereof, provided that any
Increase in the debit mourning power
of the city of New York, which shall
result from the exclusion of the debts
heretofore incurred shall be available
only for the acquisition or construction
of properties to be used for rapid tran
sit or dock purposes
"Under that provision of the con-
stitution," added Mr.. Craig, there was
exempted in 1910 and subsequent years
in round figures little less than S70,-
100000 Of dock bonds and about SAT-
100000 of rapid bonds. That gives that
total of SILT. 100000. which you claim