Weekly commercial herald. (Vicksburg, Miss.) 1884-18??, 1885-10-02

says on this subject is the mere ex
preston of opinion, it is waste Of
time to discuss it.
The Doctor points to other cities
which he says have been swindled BY
railroads. His logic is that we should
not contract with this road, because
other roads 6ave acted in bad faith
If we assume that we cannot make
contract with a railroad and protect
our rights under it, there was no use
in making an effort to secure the shops
In the start, and this point of the Doc
tors bluntly contradicts his assertion
that he has a sincere desire to have
the shops, for he knows we must
make contract to get them.
There is no logic whatever
in referring to other cities, without
the facts and those facts develop a
precisely similar position to ours.
What fat old Italian lady laughing
so uncontrolably as to break her apron
strings, has to do with the question,
we have not been able to discover, so
we will leave her to mend her apron
strings, or not, just as she decides.
That the city contracts to exempt the
road from taxation for ninety-nine
years, the Doctor thinks is perfectly
horrible. He not only says we will
plunge a dagger into our bootblack
bosom, he thinks it would
enslave US and our children,
and quotes Solomon to prove
that we should not give to the rich.
Those in favor of the shops are con-
vinced, that the securing of them, will
increase the taxable property of the
city many times over what we exempt
from taxation. In other words,
instead of losing revenue by the con,
tract, that we will gain revenue. We
are firmly convinced they are hight
and instead Of giving anything to the
rich (the road) we only enter into a
contract with it, by which our sources
of taxation will be greatly increased.
This is sound logic as the shops will
increase our population at least
thousand, restore confidence in our
future and cause ten times the increase
in the value of real estate that we
surrender in taxes to the road.
The assertion that firm contract
will bring on lawsuits is only another
expression of opinion, and is only to
be considered as such. Our opinion is
that the programme Of the anti-shopS
men would throw US into sea of legal
trouble and strike a serious blow at
our mercantile interests.
The chief argument of the Doctor
and of all the anti-shops men, is that
the city is left at the mercy of the road;
they assert that the road may CON-
mence the shops, get the bonds, and
snap its fingers in the face Of the city.
They all vociferously assert that the
contract gives the road the "whip
hand" so to speak, of the city. The
Doctor, in his scare-people-sort.of-ex
travagance, says:
"Never, never, did 1 read contract that
yawned with such capacity to eMgulf all the
rights and all the hopes of an unsuspectlng and
credulous class of voters. Am dreaming or is |
this waking hour and this an honest business
contract? But enough, enough"
We have read the contract very care
fully, and we fail to discover the scare
crow. In point of fact the city, by
it, undoubtedly can enforce good |
faith. 1t binds the city to !
give 100000 in bonds and to
to exempt the road from taxation in
consideration Of certain specified
things to be done. Now If those
things are not done in good faith the
city will cease paying the interest on
The bonds and instantly levy a tax on
The road. What better security could
5he city wantp The road 1OiU act in
JoOd faith, because it will never en-
langer its exemption from NUM-
,ipal taxation and risk the loss
II the city bonds. The truth is
The contract will be mutually
1t will make the road
good friend Of the city, and the city a
yood friend Of the road.
Our merchants, real estate owners
Ind all good citizens, white and colored,
hould see the danger of following the
IdYice Of the anti-shop men. They
,annot afford to listen to mere
emotional appeals in opposition tethe
mercantile interests Of the city. They