GRAVEL ROADS.
Mr. Ristine's bill [S. 54], to amend Section 7 of the gravel road law of 1879, was read the second time, with a Committee report, which was concurred in.
Mr. MARVIN moved to amend the bill by restoring the proviso, and doubling the amount of outstanding bonds allowed by the existing law. Increasing from $50,000 to $100,000.] We have tried the $50,000 limitation for two years and like it well, and now we are willing to double it, and then if it be thought wise to throw off all limit it can be done.
Mr. RISTINE explained the purpose of the bill was to leave off the proviso to Section 7 of the present law, and opposed the proposed amendment.
Mr. SCHAFFER was sure his County could not construct roads as fast as the people demand, because of the limitation in the present law. He favored the bill because it strikes out the limit.
Mr. BRISCOE--His section of the country has eshausted the $50,000 limitation of the law. His people were willing the limit shall not exceed $100,000. He opposed an unlimited amount. It is well that County Commissioners should have their hands tied, otherwise the County would be swamped with indebtedness on account of gravel road bonds.
Mr. URMSTON cited a case in which the proposed amendment would work a great hardship--where the roads are all on one side of the County. He opposed any restriction.
Mr GARRIGUS referred to two gravel roads in his County which were for a long time in litigation,, just ended, resulting in a deduction from the assessment of 18 per cent., and now, as the bonds were issued by the County, the County must pay the balance, there not being enough left from the assessments to pay them. He was in favor of free gravel roads, but did not like to render the County liable to pay the bonds issued for their construction.
Mr. RISTINE contended that the present law was a dead letter in many Counties, by reason of this restriction. This law has been the means of building and improving many gravel roads. As it stands, it works injustice in that one part of the County gets roads, and other parts of the Counties are cut off. Two-thirds of the County of Montgomery is unable to construct roads because the limitation has been exhausted in the other one-third. When it is remembered that it is not the debt of the County, but of those parties adjacent to the road, why is this objection made to removing the restriction?
Mr. VAN VORHIS favored the proposed limitation.
Mr.GARIGUS moved to amend by adding proviso that the County shall not be liable payment of the bonds.
Mr. URMSTON resisted the amendment, fearing if it were adopted no sale could be made of bonds.
Mr. RISTINE also thought the amendment would take away the market value of the bonds, and thereby render the law useless.
Mr. CHAPMAN considered there would be really no market for such a bond and the law would be nugatory. A bond at par value, payable by assessments on A, B and C, bearing 6 per cent, could not find a market.
Mr. VAN VORHIS believed discussion has developed the wisdom of the amendment proposed and rejected a little while ago. If Counties are liable for these bonds there ought to be a limit fixed.
Mr. GRAHAM lived in County having more gravel roads in proportion to territory than any other County in the State. He opposed the bill as it stands while proposing no limitation, and opposed extending, but rather favored limiting the powers of County Commissioners, and would at this time favor the pending amendment. Unless such bonds can be sold without indorsement of the County they had better not be issued.
Mr. URMSTON reported such an amendment as simply saying the bonds issued by the County are of no validity. He would rather see the law wiped out than that such an amendment should should prevail.
Mr. CHAPMAN understood a bond issued under the pending amendment would be a bond without any payor, as the parties assessed would not be parties to the bond. Such a law would be worthless entirely, and had better not be placed on the statute books.
Mr. GRAHAM did not intend to act foolishly in the endeavor to protect County Treasuries. The purpose of the bill is to enable organizations to construct gravel roads. Under former laws they were constructed without the aid of Counties, and why can not it be done now.
On motion of Mr. RISTINE, the further consideration of this subject was postponed and made the special order for Thursday, at 2 o'clock p.m.
And then the Senate adjourned?
