Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1884-02-18
VIM IA RESPONSIBLE.

MONDAY EVENING. FEB. 10. 1884,
VINO IL Responsible.
The Examiner gives itself and its
cause away badly when 1t undertakes to
discuss the sinking fund Of the city,
which has been increased so largely
under Democratic administration and to
which, under the management of Mayor
Stauffer and Select Councilman Evans,
not even the interest on its own bonds
was added during the mayoralty Of Mr..
MacGonigle's predecessor. The Er-
aminer quotes the city ordinances to the
effect that "t the finance committee shall
be the commissioners of the sinking
fund !" but 1t omits to say that the es-
sential difference bet ween Republican
and Democratic administration of the
mayors Office was that Stauffer allowed
these commissioners TO neglect their duty
while MacGonigle made them attend
to It.
The Examiner admits that ''during
Mayor Stauffer's administration not one
cent Of principal was put into the sink
ing fund y; but it adds, by way of
apology, "there being no lap compelling Il,
the fund got only the benefit of yearly
interest,"" Now mark how plain tale
shall set 1t down: The law regulating
city sinking funds was enacted May %,
1874, and was the law at the beginning
Of every fiscal year, which began
under Stauffer's administration. The
Examiners statement to the contrary is
q wilful misstatement, hagrant per-
version Of the truth, as any one can see,
by turning to page 234, sec. xi, p. l..
1874. That law directs that not less
than mill on the assessment Of prop
erty, together with the interest on the
amount already in the sinking fund,
shall be put into the fund annually.
According to the direction Of the law,
there should have been made in the
fiscal years Of 1875, 1877 and 1878 an
annual addition to the sinking fund of
not less than $1,000. Let us see IL this
was done, and if not, who was response
BILE for the violation of the law.
BY the message of Mayor Stauffer,
June, 1875, it Is reported that the
additions made to the sinking fund
during the year were sl0, 600, which was
few thousands more than the interest
on the bonds in the fund. Next year,
however, the addition was only $1,000
10 1867, it was $500 and in ls77-s
only 81, ,OOO-a total of sl9, 800 in four
years, averaging Si,s25 per year, or
really less than the interest on the bonds
in the fund.- itself.
BY the finance reports of the city 1t is
to be seen that the finance committee OF
councils-"the commissioners of the
sinking fund.-" were
June, 1876: r. A. Evans, chairman ;
John Baker, G. A. Bitner, J. B. Kevln-
ski. Four Republicans, no Democrat.
June, 1877 X. a. Evans, chairman ;
Thos. w. Brown, John A. Boring, John
A. Erben. Three Republicans, one
Democrat.
June, 1875: X. A. Evans, chairman {;
Thos. w. Brown, John d. Skiles, Benz.
p. Miller. Three Republicans, one
Democrat.
Now, since the EGdminer has shifted
the responsibility Of managing the sink
ing fund from the mayor to the finance
committee, let it explain as best it can
why Mr.. Evans neglected TO comply with
the law and his sworn duty. 1t will moi
do to say this was not the law then, fol
the law was passed In the first year oi
Stauffer's administration. II the tax tC
raise money for the sinking fund was
not levied, why not? II it was levied
what became OF the ST., 200 raised by it,
Of which so small a part--one year only a
thousand dollars--was paid into the sink.
ing fund? The application of city funds to
another purpose than that for which they
are specifically raised and appropriated
isa high misdemeanor In office. Whether
1t was the sinking fund commissioners
neglect Of duty or Republican mayors
makes no difference to the present issue.
The way found to prevent 1t during the
past six years is a Democratic mayor
Let the citizens continue this" whole
some check" upon councils.