The New York herald., 1921-09-26
CHARGES OFFICIALS
IGNORE CONSTITUTION
ON CITY'S DEBT Limit
Counsel Brown of Meyer
Committee Cuts Hylan's
S137,OOO,OOO Margin to
Only $4,000, 900.
PLAIN LAW VIOLATED
Could Have Made Piers Self
Sustaining and Reinvest-
ed $12O,OOO,OOO to Make
New York Big Port.
THREE REMEDIES NAMED
Piling Up Huge Debts Without
Apparent Intent to Pay or
Trying to Solve Fiscal
Problems Is Alleged.

City officials are ignoring all con.
stitutional restrictions as they rush
on, plunging New York overhead in
debt without any apparent intention
of ever meeting the obligations, Elon
r. Brown, senior counsel to the Meyer
committee. charged yesterday in q
brief dealing with the city's taxing
and debt incurring power. His argu.
ment Is based on the evidence taken
by the committee in its examination
Of Comptroller Craig and other Off.
cials.
BY misuse of the debt incurring
provisions inserted in the Constitu.
tion lifting self-sustaining improve
ments out Of the debt limit the city
officials have gone s12O,000,00O be-
yond the statutory limit imposed by
the State, Mr.. Brown asserts. In.
stead of debt limit of s137, ,OOO, 900,
which the Hylan administration in
sists the city now has, Mr.. Brown
contends that limit is $17,0O0,0OO for
next years purposes.
There Is no limit to the exhaus.
tion of the city's credit excepting the
Constitution" Mr.. Brown remarks in
his paper, which was submitted to
the committee as his findings on this
subject. II
afs
obvious Rensdy Neglected.
The simple and obvious remedy of
making the city's dock Investments
self-supporting by getting adequate
rental never seemed to have occurred
TO the city officials. Instead, 1t has
been shown by the committees in
quiry into the Dock Department that
piers have been given out on a sys-
tenn of favoritism. almost without re-
gard to what revenue was produced.
Had the great dock property been
administered wisely and well it would
have followed that great sums in
vested in these piers would have been
released for reinvestment in other
piers and New York, instead OF facing
the disgrace of congested port with
commerce driven away by profiteers
and gamblers in pier leases. would
have ample berthing space for every
ship coming to this port. New York's
commercial supremacy has been
threatened in recent years for no
other reason than the lack Of accom-
modations here.
1T does not seem to have occurred
to the city authorities that the city
could easily relieve itself from all en-
barrassment arising from these limita-
tions (regarding the debt limit) by
ceasing to roll up huge Indebtedness
which it has no intention of meeting
except by renewal or by substituting
obligations greater in amount than the
debt incurred" Mr.. Brown stated.
Two clear and distinct violations ca n
be charged against the city's adminis-
traton. Mr.. Brown states. These are
violations Are Summarized.
The tax levy was based on the
1921 instead of the 1920 assessmt Mt
rolls The constitutional limit IS 2
per cent. OF the total assessment.
The 1921 assessment was much
greater than the preceding years,
and by applying the levy on the last
roll available the city obtained
S20,000.000 more than allowed by
the constitution.
The constitution. amended spe-
officially for this purpose, exempts
self-sustalning transit and dock i'm
provements from the debt limit and
provides that when such improve
ments do become self-supporting the
money invested therein may be re-
invested In other dock and tranat
improvements. All the city has 10
do to get all the docks and transit
facilities needed is 10 make these
carry themselves. Instead OF apply
ing the money released when either
piers or transit lines became sup
porting, the city had applied the
amount thus lifted from the debt
limit TO all kinds of city purposes.
This Is In distinct violation OF the
constitution. which provides that
the excluded bonds can be used for
piers or transit only and for no other
purpose.
Mr.. Brown states:
THE theory is now boldly put forth
that the city is entitled to the cxomp.
tion Of the bonds excluded. for all pur-
poses. because of the expenditure D,
moneys equal In amount to the dock
and rapid transit bonds excluded. The
error springs from the conception that
the expenditure for docks and rapid
transit came out OF a special fund ere
ated by the exclusion OF the bonds before
the debt limit was reached. and that
the Increase In the debt incurring power
was thus available for this purpose be-
fore the normal debt incurring rover
was exhausted.
But the city could not avail itself oi
an increase In the debt incurring power