Force Measures Will Not Do

FORCE MEASURES WILL NOT DO 

-----

People Can Not Be Made to Vote Extra Appropriation 

-----

CULVERT REPAIR FUNDS

-----

Have been Available and Can Readily Be Used--Legal Phase of the Case

-----

     The Argus has been requested by a taxpayer to throw a little more light upon the astounding proposition of the city attorney that the council cannot repair the damage to the streets by the recent flood, but must appeal to the people first and should board up the streets until such time as the people vote an extra appropriation sufficient to defray the expenses. 

     The city attorney may possibly have some excuse for making such an astonishing statement. He was evidently of the opinion Monday night that people must be made to conform to his views, at least the people must be made to vote a larger tax levy and the supervisors must be made to pay the county's just share of the paving on Ann street.

     it was currently reported that the estimate of $25,000 for repairing the damage caused by the flood was the city attorney's own estimate. The people sat down upon it with great vehemence. Undoubtedly it was galling but nevertheless this furnished no excuse for an attempt to make the taxpayers vote as they did not see fit to vote. It certainly must be evident to anyone who keeps an ear to the ground as to the drift of public opinion, that that opinion, if force measures are attempted by the city attorney, will be more emphatically rendered than before.

     There are two funds which can be used to repair the damage done by the floods, both of which are immediately available, the city attorney's august opinion not withstanding. These two funds are the Bridge, Culvert and Crosswalk fund, for which $18,000 is being raised, and the Street fund, for which $17,000 is being raised. Thus funds amounting to $35,000 can be drawn upon to pay for the much needed repairs.

     It is true that the $17,000 in the street fund is much needed for work outside of Allen's creek. It is also true that the $18,000 in the Bridge, Culvert and Crosswalk fund was wanted for other purposes. But the Argus states it as a matter of law, without fear of contradiction by competent lawyers, that the council has no legal right to use the Bridge, Culvert and Crosswalk fund for the purposes the mayor and city attorney had in view when they procured its levy, and that the council can be enjoined from so using it. In other words the council has no legal right to transfer money from this particular fund to any other fund.

     To make this contention plainer it may be state that section 171 of the charter provides that the aggregate amount of tax the council may raise shall not exceed one-half of one per cent. Section 172 provides that the general tax thus levied shall be divided into the following funds: Contingent, Fire Department, Street, Water, Police, Poor, Cemetery and such other funds as the council may provide. It should be remembered that the tax levy for the funds above mentioned was up to the limit allowed by law. It must also be remembered that the Bridge, Culvert and Crosswalk fund is not included in these general city funds, but is raised, not under the charter provisions, but under a state law passed to enable cities, villages or townships to provide for just such emergencies as the floods in this city. And the amount of tax levied for this fund is in excess of the one-half of one per cent the council is allowed by the charter to raise.

     Section 172, which enumerates the city funds, and which does not include this special state law Bridge, Culvert and Crosswalk fund, contains the only charter provision which enables the council to transfer money from one fund to another, and the only funds from which transfers are authorized to be made are the enumerated funds. In fact the provision contains the words "the above funds," and the Bridge, Culvert and Crosswalk fund is not one of them.

     The argument may be carried still further. The Bridge, Culvert and Crosswalk fund was created under a special law to provide a way in which damages caused by the sweeping away of bridges, culverts and crosswalks could be repaired by a tax levy in excess of that allowed to be made by charter. The law provides for what this money shall be spent. There is no lawful right anywhere to expend the money thus raised for police, fire, cemetery or other city purpose. It is raised for one purpose and must be spent for that alone. If this were not true then the charter provision limiting the amount of tax that might be raised has no virtue whatever for the council could raise what further amount it wants in this fund and transfer it to the other funds.

     If the city attorney will think a little about this and will put aside personal pique, he will see that the people were right in saying, use this $18,000 in building bridges or culverts, the only other lawful way in which it can be expended. If other funds are short, ask for the money needed in those funds for the purpose for which it is wanted.

     When the people of Ann Arbor have been appealed to in a frank, straight-forward way and told why money was needed, they have almost without exception voted it. But they cannot be made to vote an extra appropriation when there is money immediately available for the purpose wanted, simply because some one wishes to use that money to reinforce other funds.

     We hope we have thrown the added light on this subject that our taxpayer friend desires.