Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1888-03-09


white children Of this city. Believing that
this article is calculated to do me iDjus-
tiee. and place mo before this people as
opposed 60 tho Improvement of the public
aehaals OF the city, Is my excuse for en-
gagins iii newspaper controversy, which
| have neither the time nor Inclination to
indulge in, i will give briefly my posi-
ton tewarda the public schools. When
tho present council came into office, July
/, 50, thought that the Improvement Of
the public schools and the building OF an
alma house were the matters of paramount
Importance likely to come before the
council. and l was willing to 20 ahead at
once. aud expend as much as $4,000 to
$4,000 for the Improvement OF the
schools. This sum was determined on.
after careful estimate OF the financial
condition Of the city, and not because l
objected to having more costly school
houses. Of this sum thought that from
SIG, 900 to 81, 600 should be spent in i'm
proving the old Wesleyan building, now
torn down, and from 81 900 to S. 600 i'm
proving the present colOred school house
on old MarkeJ-hOuse lot, unless We could
sell 1t and secure more l'glble site.
did not wish to drive the colOred children
out into the suburbs, like rabbits, as was
recommended in April, 'S7. as follows:
"Mr. Tams from special committee re-
ported that they had made an examination
of various lots, and had decided on two
as suitable for the erection of two new
school houses for the colOred children, one
corner Of Caroline and Sunnyside streets,
(near beginning of The Valley pike) and
the other on south Green street, not far
from G. & o. trestle bridge. Il quote
from VINDICATOR of April %, 'S7
The council, however, did not seem to
agree with me In regard to the schools
being matter of paramount Importance,
for as early as August 17Jh. 'e6. less than
two months after the present council came
into office, I find that Messrs. Tams.
Butts and Bargamin, Special Committee
on Electric Light, made a report from
which I quote, as follows: I'm conclusion
your committee believe the lighting of our
city is and ought to De, matter of para
mount Importance to every citizen, &C., y
and at a meeting of the council held Sept.
7th, 'S6, contract was made with the
the Thompson Houston people for an cleo
trio light plant at a cost of 81 1884. The
city paying back in cash on completion OF
the work, the amount expended by the
company for freights, drayage. labor,
poles, &c. voted reluctantly for this con.
tract, not that was opposed to cleo.
trio lights, but because 1 thought it best
to first improve our schools, and then see
whether our financial condition would
admit of making this expenditure. AS
every other member present was anxious
to have the electric light, at once, /
thought perhaps it would look like fac,
tious opposition, to oppose them. l was
also assured that the cost of lighting the
city by that means, would be but little
over that paid for lighting it with gas. |
will also state that had no idea the cost
Of freights, labor, poles, &C., would in
crease the cost from 81 264 to 1920.
Ihave. however. until recently been
congratulating our citizens upon hav.
ing its electric lights run SO cheaply
through the management of the present
council; although the newspapers are
filed up with startling figures in re-
gard to the cost of the light else
where. From that source learn that but
small portion of the areas of the great
metropolises of London, Paris. and New
York are lit by electricity, owing to the
high cost of the light.
But if "Councilman" is as reckless in
the figures used by him in regard to the
cost Of running the electric lights, as
propose to show him to be in regard to his
figures on the subject of the financial con
dition Of this city, it may be- that we are
not getting our electric light any cheaper
than New York, or even Richmond OF
Lynchburg, either of which cities,
should think, had at least equal facilities
for furnishing it at as cheap a rate as Staun
ton. Now let us look at "Counclman 81
figures,
Hoao stands the city. ,fnaacsally9
"Councilman" has been remarkably
reckless in his dealing with these figures
As stated by him the comparison is al
follows:
Bonded indebtedness is now.".$315 800 OF
IS s. was June
90 $50 $4,000. 201 00l OF