Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1888-04-13
The Record of the Present
Council.
E6it0r Tin0iGatO1...

Edit0r VihdaGdt0r:
| see nothing in Mr. Cochran's last article
that would call for reply, except one state
ment wherein he says he has ''written evil
dence" to disprove my assertion in regard to
the cost of the street light plant. Let us in
yestigate this matter.
Mr.. G. asked me in his last article but one,
"Whether an account allowed the Thomson
Houston Electric Co. for 1914. SO and charged
to the miscellaneous account should not be
charged either against construction account
or running expense of the street light plant"
To which 1 replied, Il will say tor his (Mr.
c. 's) enlightenment, this sum is ipc5Nde6 IN
the So 2700J, qctich stated as being the cost Of
said street plant, and consequently should not
be added thereto a second time, Gas he did IN
his last article)." If it is possible to make a
clearer statement of facts, 1 am at a loss for
language to express it. Now what comment
does Mr. C. make to my reply quoted By him
as a60Ue gioen? Namely this. 81 Mr.. G. have
the written statement of Mr. Newton Argen-
bright Clerk of the City Council, that this is
not true, Be- If he has statement from Mr.
Argenbright, that will prove the $274.5O
above mentioned, is not included in the cost
of the street light plant as stated by me and
quoted above, why did he not publish it ? The
reason is manifest as the sequel will show:
sTo W. p. Tams, Esq:
t.SIR-In the Committee account book of
the City Council, l find there is
charged to Street Electric Light
Construction Account. the sum
OF .......... SJ, Uuo %
Add. account alloweds for services
of expert and charged to MIS-
oELLANEoUs ACCOUNT. 274 SO
Total cost street plant............... $9,281. 05
NEWTON ARGENBRIGHT, Clerk"
(The difference in total amounts, viz :
$11.00, having occurred in transcribing my
first article and being overlooked thereafter
Thus, you will observe. Mr.. Argenbr1ght
certifes to the correctness of my statement,
and Mr.. Cochran can hardly have anything
over the signature of Mr.. A.. or in his hand
aoriting. that will disprove it.
AS Mr.. Cochran has done everything in his
power to bring discredit on the bonds of the
city, by making such reckless statements as
the following .Staunton bonds (sixes)
that formerly brought $lu6 90 are to-day dull
sale at par or $4,000, &c." have taken the
| trouble to investigate the true market valne
of city skies, and to enquiries on that subject
have received the following replies in writing:
One gentleman says be ''holds S15, 100000 in
6 per cent. city of Staunton bonds and will
not sell, as he thinks he knows a good thing
| when he sees it." He also says 1.-THE bonds
were purchased some years ago and cost him
less than par. but he would not take par for
| them" And from banker in Baltimore,
Nd, hear ''Staunton, Va, 6 per cent.
bonds are worth 102 or 103 and interest,"" Or
at the present writing $4,000 city 6 per
cent. bond is worth about $lO4, 100" If Mr..
G. or any of his friends, have any Staunton 6
per cent. long term bonds for sale at par, /
am instructed to purchase them for q custo-
, mer.
The unanswered portion of Mr.. C.'s last ar
ticle is SO barren of facts as to be unworthy
of notice.
I will close by again repeating, what have
proven in my former communications, when
I compared the present financial status of the
city with what it was when this Council came
into Office, viz:
First-'Ihat the bonded debt of the city has
been incrt ased by this Council only S14, 900,
which fact Mr.. Cochran had to admit.
Second-That by its financial policy. this
Council has added to the value Of the city's
assets, numerous useful and permanent i'm
proyements worth $36, 15S, 20; which state.
| ment Mr.. G. does not undertake to disproye.
| Third-That the sinking fund has been in
creased over So, 000, 90 IN ercess of what the
law prescribes; which fact Mr.. C. cannot dis
. prove.
Fourth--That the city now has contracts
for sale of commercial electric lights amount
ing to about 50, 1880 per annEm, and that
the street lights for the year 1887, cost about
| 81, $50. 60; neither of which statements can
Mr.. Cochran disprove.
! In all that he has written, what has Mr.. G
proven that was discreditable to the present
Council and pertinent to the main question
Absolutely nothing. And what has he done
in regard to the clty's bondsf Why every.
| thing in his power to bring discredit upon
them, by crying them down. If he thinks
such conduct brings h1m honor and credit,
let him proceed. W. P. TAMs.