The Boomerang Returns Now is the time to place some properly belongs. A suit is pending to test the validi of unissued city loans. In connect sational predictions have been sp having as one of their results-if, their prime object-the blaming of sponsors of the new city charter f "loan muddle" into which the cit have fallen. No better service could be rende of Philadelphia at this time than phatically that the framers and spon city charter are in no wise to blame litigation, but that certain enemies of who hold high offices in the city g wholly responsible for the section o out of which the suit arises. A brie facts will make this clear. The History Begins One of the major results which th mittee sought to obtain for Philadelp the governor repeatedly promised, w modern fiscal system. In keeping wi tude of the task and the intricate a be substituted. The attorney general's instructions also required that a representative of the revisionists sit down with the opposition and come to an agreement with them on the substitute article. The Unavoidable In compliance with the attorney general's behest a series of conferences was held with the charter's opponents, at all of which the opponents insisted on using drafts prepared in the city solicitor's office as the basis for discussion. The few changes that the charter committee's representative succeeded in effecting in the city solicitor's drafts were obtained only at great cost of time and energy. Conditions were such that the substitute article had to go in without even the minimum study and polishing that the charter committee wished to give it. The Opponents' Wording As enacted into law the article under attack in the pending taxpayer's suit is virtually the article drafted in the city solicitor's office. In essence, it is the wording which the city solicitor, the city controller, and the chairman of the finance committee forced into the charter against the protests of the charter revisionists. The responsibility is on the shoulders of these three officials and the attorney general. The wording is as different from that of the charter committee as night is from day. The opponents of the charter were unreceptive to suggestions-even those made simply to clarify their own draft. A Vital Suggestion Turned Down At one point in the conferences the suggestion was made on the part of the revisionists that words be added to the draft to indicate whether or not the prohibition against borrowing money for current expenses was to apply to all loans to be issued after the effective date of the article, or only to loans authorized after that date. This suggestion was disposed of by the charter opponents on the ground that they did not want the prohibition to apply to loans authorized prior to the effective date, and that without specific wording to that effect the courts would unquestionably take the stand that only loans authorized after that date were restricted to purposes other than current expenses. It is precisely the lack of this specific wording that has given rise to the litigation in question and to all the sensational assertions and predictions unjustifiably based thereon. What Is and What Isn't The charter committee's article on indebtedness (article XVIII), except for the elimination of six words made necessary by the article substituted for the original budget article, was enacted into law exactly as introduced in the legislature. That article is in no way involved in the pending suit. The only part of the new charter that is involved is section 8 of article XVII, which, as above stated, is not the work of the charter committee. |