Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1875-08-20
"a GENERAL LAXITT."


A member of the Council the other
evening at session of the Board, in dis
cussing the complaints about the police
force, said they exhibited a general laxity.
Perhaps it was not precisely apropos to the
point under discussion, which was that a
policeman had made an illegal assault on
a man he was seeking to take into custody,
which could not exactly be mistaken for
laxlty in his office; but the term was good
one, and may be so justly applied to the
city government of Staunton in some of
it's branches little higher than the police
that we are tempted to give it still more
point. We hardly remember to have seen
a body more given'to laxity in it's transac
ton of business than the Honorable Com
mon Council itself. When member in
his seat wants information whether the
Chairman of the Police Committee or the
Mayor has the power to remove or suspend
an officer under charges, it creates sur
prise, only to be exceeded by the statement
quickly made by another member that the
Mayor has the power to remove any officer
of the city, and even the Councilmen them
selves! When such inquiries and state
ments as these are made by members of
the Board, it is reasonable to suppose that
there must be good deal of laxity OF III
formation somewhere. The acting Mayor
who is now presiding over the Council re
ceived the announcement that he could
remove it's members with a remark
full of grim hlmor, to the effect that
he was sorry he hadn't known it be-
fore. No doubt he has seen many
occasions when he could have removed
them with clear conscience, and those
occasions must have run through his mi nd
as he sat there during the gable of Monday
night. He must have remembered when, by
their carelessness in making the deed for the
lots given to the G. & 0. for shops, they lost
$4,000 Of the peoples money, and thought
how economical it would have been to have
removed them before that. And when
they voted to put $4,000 Of the peoples
money into the pockets of the Main street
property holders. How he would like to
have removed them then! And the other
night when, with swift hand, they &C
cepted the offer of two citizens to sell the
city for $4,000, a water-right, which it is a
very nice legal question Of riparian rights
whether they are entitled to one cent for;
a similar case having been decided in
the highest courts adversely to claims
for damages How he would have liked
to have closed the council doors and turn
ed the case into court. with the damage
claimants as plaintiff-which should have
been done. When they sunk $1,000 more
of the city;s money by refusing the lowest
bid from a practical hydraulic engineer, fol-
case; and when. some more of it Was made
ducks and brakes OF the other night by &C
cepting the acting Mayors own price OF
5000 an acre for a rocky piece Of land on
the outskirts Of the city, for reservoir
site. instead of appointing commisslonto
condemn and appraise it. That last must
have capped the climax of general laxity
at least let us hope SO. No good citizen
should object to taxation for improvements
They benefit all, and large debt is NJ
scarecrow to a growing city. But wher
one can count on his ten fingers over
$27 600 of the city's money throun a,cay-
absolutely gone. for which no. return ~
benefit is received, he begins to-le 81
general laxity'' as disease in city gov
eminent too near akin to death to be jest
ed about.
We publish these facts with an earnest
desire to call the attention of our chief mu.
nicipal body to what it is doing, and with
hope OF inducing more care. The tota
of $27 900 is frightful cost of twelve men
for two years, and in that we do not put
the extra cost IF the Augusta st. bridge,
which will increase it materially, wlle1
She courts give their decision. No amount
of explanation explanations will be plenty
can do away with these facts. All ;lre
answered by this: that no member Of the
Council would have put his private business
in the way of sustaining such losses.