CITY AID TO BRIDGE BUILDING.
On motion by Mr. MENZIES his motion entered several days ago to reconsider the vote by which Mr Wilson's bill [S. 131] to amend Section 16 of the act approved March 2, 1885, so as to allow cities top indorse and guarantee the payment of bonds issued by any Bridge or Road Company, was taken up. He declared that there was granted to City Councils this bill extraordinary power to guarantee the bonds for one-fourth the entire cost of a bridge over the Ohio or Wabash River without the people having any choice in it, as to whether they will subscribe stock or vote aid thereto. A bridge over the Ohio is not likely to cost less than $1,000,000. Municipalities were not organized to build bridges or railroads and this bill seeks to enlarge the powers of the City Councils almost without limit. In order that this matter may be carefully considered he had entered a motion several days ago to reconsider the vote by which the bill referred to was ordered engrossed.
Mr. WILSON introduced this bill in order to benefit the people residing on the border of the State, where the rivers or streams are the dividing line. In his own city a bridge over the Ohio River would be a great advantage; but while the people do not wish to vote aid to a Bridge Company, or to subscribe stock thereto, they are willing to indorse bonds to the amount of one fourth of the cost, and this bill is to enable them to do so, inasmuch as there is now no law on our statute book authorizing such a thing to be done.
Mr. CHAPMAN, as he could understand this bill, regarded the question presented to be whether or not it is advisable to let Common Councils vote away the public money to private enterprises, on the ground that their construction is for the public good. It is no doubt for the public interest that in all cases where it is proposed to vote away the public funds, the body voting such aid should be first so instructed by the people themselves. He held that a body has no right to vote away public funds to advance private enterprises, even when so instructed by a majority vote of the people; but it is for each man to determine for himself whether he will give of his own means to aid in the construction of any enterprise or work. Taxation should be strictly confined to Government purposes.
Mr. BELL would vote for this motion with the understanding that the bill to be amended so as to require a majority vote. He believed a bridge used by railroads, and having a wagon way, would be a paying investment, and there would be little danger of liability in indorsing of the cost.
Mr. GRAHAM regarded it is reasonable to suppose a city on the opposite shore would have as much interest in the structure of a bridge as the city on this shore, and if such a city would indorse bonds to the same extent as the one on this side, there would be no difficulty in pushing the work to a speedy completion. Shall we authorize cities and Counties to subscribe to gravel and other roads to an almost unlimited amount, and then refuse to cities on the border what is asked in this bill? He opposed the motion on reconsider.
Mr. MENZIES reminded the Senators that the present law requires the consent of 60 per cent. of the people of Evansville to subscribe to such an enterprise, while this bill would repeal that law and place this vast power in the hands of a bare majority of the City Council. Forty per cent. have now an opportunity to protect themselves from one of these schemes where men are brought in by the car load to carry whenever an election is held. The community is almost invariable taken in, and not many years ago it was looked upon as the dream of a dreamer for any Legislator to get up and propose the guarantee of any such kind of paper by the people, much less by a simple majority of a City Council. The object of reconsidering is to hedge in this law, if you will have such a measure on the statute books. Let the people instruct their special agents on the Council whether or not they wish to aid in the building a bridge or other like structure.
The motion to reconsider was agreed to by yeas, 39; nays 7.
Mr. MENZIES moved to amend, by requiring a petition of majority of tax-payers before the city shall guarantee such bonds.
On motion by Mr. WILSON, the bill and pending amendment was referred to the Committee on Corporations.
