Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1888-03-30

Total cost to operate plant ST. .575 SO
And by reference to the accounts allow
ed by the council he will see they amount
to 81 ,594 SO the difference in amounts
having heretofore been explained. In
referring to this subject, Mr.. Cochran
speaks OF interest upon the plant which
has been paid for IN cash. Would he, in
estimating the yearly cost for ''street ex-
penditures'' include the interest on the
$50, 600 or 100000 expended thereon in
cash in the last dt zen years3 or would he
include the interest on the $50, 900 eXpend-
ed in maintaing the poor OF the city for
the past ten years, in making up an annu-
al account of the amount 1t took to sup
port the poor for any one year? Of course
lie would not, for it would be nonsensical
to do SO; and likewise is it so with respect
to the street plant which has been paid for
III cash. And in the next place the wear
and tear upon the machinery Is not what
Mr.. Cochran states it to be, but even if it
was, it could not be included under the
head of operating expense"
Mr.. Cochran's next Lament" is the
people of this city have been required to
pay 10 per cent. more water tax than they
did in the year 1868 and by what au-
thority he could not learn" Mr.. q. knows
the water tax has not been increased, and
u0 SIlOulu uOU WHO Ill ouCu AlolOcoluS
manner. He knows full well that the 10
per cent. he refers to, was formerly allow
ed as rebate for prompt payment of
water tax, and to whom? Why to the
rich man, with money in his pocket or to
bis credit in bank, while the poor man has
10 per cent. added to his tax If he does not
pay it IN Is days, thereby making the poor
IAN pay 20 per cent. more water tax than
his rich nelghbor, simply because he Is
poor and cannot command the ready
cash. And who has been the loser by this
little gift to the man with "ready CASH.
Why the ethyl Is there any reason why
there should be rebate on one kind of tdI
and not on another? [ think not, even
though SO per cent of the Taxpayers could
take advantage OF 1t.
Mr.. Cochran seems to be solicitous as to
the amounts spent in attempting to en-
large Il .city's limits, and in making the
little Improvement in front of the pump
house. These questions being altogether
irrelevant to the main question, have
not taken the trouble to search the record
for the facts relative thereto; but if Mr..
q. thinks the public, like himself, is yearn-
ing for information on these subjects, let
him get the facts from the record and ven
tilate them to his satisfaction.
here repeat what l have proven in my
IOEmCF dfUlclGS, Wu6u CUmUdItu Guo
present financial status of the city with
what it was when this council came into
office:
First-That the bonded debt of the city
has been increased by this council only
$14, 900. Which fact Mr.. Cochran had to
admit.
Second-That by it's financial policy it
has added to the value of the city 3 assets,
numerous. useful and permanent improv-
ments woltl $3.50 1853 40. Which statement
Mr.. g, does not undertake to disprove.
Third-That the sinking fand has been
increased over 50 600 IN esrcesS of what the
law prescribes. Which fact Mr.. G. cannot
disprove, and
Fourth-That the city now has con-
tracts for sale of commercial electric
lights, amounting to about $2,775 per an.
nun, and that the street lights for the
year 1857 cost about ST. 500; neither of
which statements can Mr.. Cochran dis.
prove.
Taking all things into consideration MIR.
Editor, whom do you think has done
most to damage the city's credit, Mr..
Cochran or the present council p?
W. Z. TAMs.