Mayor Admits Argus Correct

MAYOR ADMITS ARGUS CORRECT

No Overdraft February 1, He Says

BUT THERE WILL BE

His Contention Is That Overdraft, Which Is Non-Existent at End of Fiscal Year Springs Up Later

Mayor Copeland was in the Argus office Friday morning and admitted that on Feb. 1, 1903, the city would have no overdraft and the city has not violated the charter.

The mayor contends, however, that there will be some paving bonds to pay in March and that on that date there will be a overdraft.

The mayor says the bonds due in March will aggregate about $13,000 of paving bonds, wil probably reach $25,000. The argus neither accepts nor denies these figures. But supposing the mayor to be correct, it will be remembered that the paving bonds are not properly a city obligation and will be paid from funds laid upon and paid by the property holders. Deducting, therefore, the $13,000 from the mayor's estimated deficit of $25,000, there remains $12,000 which the city will have to borrow before the first of July. And thus by the mayor's own figures, the amount of money needed between Feb. 1st and July 1st tp take care of the city's obligations shrinks from $40,000 to $12,000. The Argus will frankly admit that there will be an overdraft in the city before July 1. But such has been the history of the city from its foundation and such has been the way it has always been run. Under its charter the fiscal year ends February 1. At that tie al taxes are supposed to have been collected. At that date under the charter, there must be no overdraft. The charter contemplates occasional overdrafts, previous to that period, but at the time such overdrafts are made everybody knows whether or not there will be money enough to meet them before the first of the following February. 

As to this point in his conversation with the Argus the mayor agreed with the Argus. But he said the banks have agreed not to let the city overdraw. This agreement, if made, is on the assumption that such overdrafts are illegal. Here is the provision of the charter on the subject. It is found in Section 186, which after providing how bonds may be issued says: "But the common council may allow just claims against the city, and may issue orders therefor on the treasurer or payable on presentation from any moneys then in the treasury, on the first day of February thereafter; but such second named class of orders shall not, in any fiscal year, exceed the aggregate taxes levied in such year for the payment of the same."

It will be clearly seen that February 1 is the date fixed by the charter on which there must be no overdraft.

If the city bonds in February to take care of current expenses and raises the money to take care of these expenses in July, the city will be out the interest on the bonds under the bill which was proposed ran for ten years, one-tenth being payable each year. A moment's thought will indicate the business sagacity exhibited.

The mayor admits that the city is raising money enough in each fiscal year to take care of all the obligations of that year. Under these circumstances why bond the city for any sum?