Not To Vote On Sewers

The refolution passed by the common oouDcil at the last meeting, providiug Lor the question of sewers to be voted upon by thejtleutors of the city, March 31, is not to be carried out as proposed, Mayor Beakea having discovered that such action would be illegal and agninst the provisions of the charter, and has 61ed a message vetoiDg the resolution. The mayor also disapproves a too liberal expenditure of the public funds, especially as the city treasury is not overfluwing at present, jast as the old c.nmcil is about to fii.ish and for this reason he hes filed a message vetoing the action taken by the council at the last meeting, in ordering sx new electric lights to be placed in vartous parta of the city. Ia his message in regard to the sewerage qufstion, the mayr r says: To the Cummon Couhcü: I nereby return to you my disapprovel of the resolution jiassed in the coiumon uouncil, Maren 17, L890, providing for a meetiug of the electora or, March 31, 1890, to vote oo the prop 9tiin to spread $10,000 on the agsessment rolls for 1890 and $10,000 for the year 1891, for the purpose of builjing a main sewer for this city. In diispproving this resolution, I do not desire to be uuderstood as seeking in anyway to prevent the electorj of the city from decidii.g for thmaelve?, wiiether or not they de ire the system of fewerage recommended by Prof. Greeae, the B ord of Health and the council. Nor do I oppose sevverage. ïhat part of the proposition subtnitted to the electora provid ng for the ievying of $10,000 tax in 1891 is, I btlieve, contrary to section 18G of ihe city charter. And, as under the resolution, this lax cannot be i-eparated from the tax to be levitd in 1890, I urn constrained to return the resolution disnpproved. A meeting of tl-ctors, legnlly called, can vote a tax for the year in which the meeting is held for an araount which will not run the totul city tax levy over one per cent. But I do not believe they can vote a tax for the next year without an ecabling act from th leg:8lature, as provided for in section 186. If they could do it for next year, then they could do it for the next tweniy years, and pection 186 of the charter would be practically abrogated. The theory of the charter is to prevent the city being run in debt without due consideraron or on the impulse of the moment. A costly, permanent improvement wbich can commend itself to the sober recond thought of the pecple has nothing to fear from the delay causet by waiting for an enabling act ol the leg islature. Such enabling acts have hitherto been obtained in this city when the electora have voted money to be raised in pubsequent years. To npread an extra tax on the rolls for 1891 without an enab ling act, would be a plain violation of the charter, and in this conneciion I woulc refer to Putnam vs. Grand Ripid', 5Í Mich. 416-423, and Niles Water Works va. Niles, 59 Micb. 311, where the supretue court has coneidered somewhat similar provisión?. If such act ion were allo wed that part of section 177 of the charter which provides for only two elector meetings in any calendar year, woulc lose mueh of its force, for $10,00( might Ie voted thia year for 1891 and two be held in 1891, which would ia effect muke three meetings for th t year. If a taz is illegally spread on the taxro'lá it will cause a vas-t amount of trouble. I need not refer to the fact that an elejtoia' meeting held March 31, does not give the electora sufficient time to consider the merils or demerits of the proposed seweraga eystetn, and if it is a meritorious system, it might fail of passing becau9e not understood. If it is necessary that the question be subuitted befúre the legis-lature meets, there are other ways in conformity with the charter in which the quetion csn be submitted. Respectfully submiUed,