Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1888-03-23


The Record Of the Present
Council.
Editor VinlicGt0r.
Mr.. ". P. Tams who replies to n y arti
Gle published in your issue of the 9th In
slant with charming simplicity and can
dor says:
MIR Cochran's character was not assailed
in any way nor were his motives or actions
impugned. Then why should he become res
tive under weight of duty well performed,
and deem it necessary to appear in lengthy
article filed for the most part, with mere
personal illusions. He knew before his CON-
munication appeared IN print, that the oval
ley Virginian" had published an extract from a
letter written by gentleman in another city
of the State, asking whether it was true that
the present council had run the city $50 900
or STE, 900 in debt and had attacked the sink
ing fund and ressued bonds which had been
redeemed, and so hurt the credit of the city,
that bonds that brought 106, cannot now be
sold for 100." Knowing this and similar re-
ports to be untrue, it would seem to me to be
rather the duty of good citizen to deny all
such, than to apparently endorse thea, by at
tempting to prove the city finances have been
most dis astrously managed. and thereby give
some foundation for such reports"
If the object Of Mr.. Tams in writing his
first article was as stated above. it is a
little singular that be should have avaiIed
himself of the occasion, just on the eve of
another election, to laud and magnify the
acts an doings of the present council, and
In that connection to place me before the
people in the attitude OF an opponent to
the improvement of tbs public schools Of
the city. If it was necessary for me to
say anything. in order that the peoui
might understand my position on tbat
subject, what I said in my last article is
sufficient. Nj. Tams must remember that
in conversation with hin On the subject,
urged him to postpone the purchase of
an electric light plant until we had mad
such necessary improvement Of The school
buildings as might be agreed upon, giving
as a reason that our first duty was TO the
schools, and assigning as further reason
that delaying the electric lights would do
DO harm, on the contrary be an advantage
as the system would be still further per-
fected in the meantime, and in my opinion
cheaper, which we would get the advan-
tage of. His reply was that the amount
[ proposed to spend on the schools, VIZ
$4,000 to $12 600, would not be a drop in
amount proposed to be expended by Mr.
Tams. as indicated in this conversation
alarmed me, and hence my vote against
plans that necessltatad tearing down the
large and valuable building then being
used for school purposes. | will state
here that did not ses the article he re-
fers to as appearing in the VALLEY Vir-
gini az, - nor did even hear OF it before
reading his article.
Noao as to the S.nkin Fund.-
Mr.. Tams s iys:
s'But Mr.. Cochran tells us IL at the Charm: n
of the Sinking Fund Committee Of old Coul-
Gil, turned over to him as Of June 80, '66, a
sinking fund amounting to SCI, 763.43, and
with the air of one who has discovered
s'nare's nest" he asks me; now what have you
got to say? I answer simply this That since
his article appeared in print, 1 have made an
examination of the resolutions passed by the
Council on June 20, $50, and find that So, 010
or one per cent. of the then bonded debt, was
ordered to be transferred Contrary to all pre-
ce7ents) to the sinking fund committee, and
by reference to the books of the Treasurer, |
find he was ordered at the same time, by the
chairman of said committee, to credit on his
books the account of the sinking fund with
81 ,450, it being the interest coupons clipped
from the bonds held by said fund, bit qchich
qoere not due until July l, '86, after tie present
Council came int office. Now substract these
two sums, viz : 5000 and, ST 45G from the
amount turned over to Mr.. Cochran, and you
will see the result is $57, 303 43-the amount
that would have been held by the sinking
fund, Wnde7 ordinary circumstances"
Well, suppose the council did put the
amounts mentioned to the credit Of the
sinking fund on June 80, 66, instead of
July 1st, 's6, contrary to alt precedents
Whose fault was it? Certainly not mine.
as l was not a member of the council at
the time; but Mr.. Tams was member
and was present when the resolution was
adopted and voted for it. (See record)
And in 1887 one per cent. OF the bonded
debt, So $50, was passed to the credit of
the siukiug fund over one month earlier
than in 1886, which was, I suppose, con-
trary to all precedents.
Why did not the council have right to
enter up these credits as of June SO, SO
Some of the coupons on these bonds Lad
been due since May l, $50. and some from
June l, 'S6, (altbough Mr.. Tams says, 81
was sufficiently well acquainted with the
nature of the bonds in the sinking fund,
to know that it held no bonds upon which
interest would accrue between June L, Sc,
and July 1St of the same Year'0, and the
balance due July l. 'S6. the day the new
council went into office. An average of
interest would have made them all due
some time before June 80, 'S6 If Mr..
Tams will look at the Treasurer's report
for May, 'e6, he will find lie took his fig
ures from that report and not from the Re-
port ending June go, 49, Mr.. Tams says:
''Mr. Cochran lays great stress upon his
supposed find of a shortage of $50 in the sink
ing fund, which is accounted for as follows:
The Treasurer was instructed to pass certain
collections to the credit of said fund to meet
the S., 600 bonds given for the street light
plant and which matured and were paid on
June l. 49, and Dec. l, 1877. Up to the present
time the Treasurer has passed only 8, $40 to
credit of such fund, thereby apparently show
ing it to be short $50. This apparent shortage
is explained below.
'.But what does Mr.. G. says about it He
tells me I had better pay the sinking fund the
$50 I owe it, If he will stop and consider a
moment, he will find ho1 such shortage can be
made up by his own good check. For did he
not allow, as chairman Of the sinking fund
committee, the sum of $12, 1894 in cash. to
lay idle in his hands from the time Mr.. Burke
turned it over to him in July $50, to Oct. 81,
'86, the day he turned over the sinking fund
to the Treasurer, when through all that time it
ought to have been well inyested? And did
he not thereby cause the city to lose Ill days
interest on s12, 463. 43, or sum equal to
$22S. 49. If he will pay that $50 which he
says 4 owe, he may call the matter square y
Now let us see about this !! Mr.. Burke
turned over the bonds and money in the
sinking fund to me July 6, S6, and on
Sept. Z, 'S6, l offered the following reso-
!. luton: "Resolred, That the Committee
on Ordinances be and is hereby authorized
TO SO amend the ordinance concerning the
sinking fund, as to make it the duty
of the Treasurer to hold the sinking
fund, instead of the Committee designated
by said ordinance On October 10,
;S6. / SUGGESTED in having the change
made In nroin0 the Gonncil To channa