The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-12-27

We agree heartily with you on the inn
portance Of good streets. but We fear that
your Saturdays editorial on the above
theme is not calculated 10 further this
object. Your charge and your specihca-
ton do not agree, because II is difficult TO
see "spoils' I'm the natural determination
that constituents money be spent in their
own behalf and not in others behalf.
On the contrary, II rather seems 'spoils''
10 tax all wards and spend the proceeds
in one ward, and the burden OF your
complaint is that councilmen will not DO
this. The only flaw or 'spOils" in their
plan is that distribution IS arithmetic and
not prOportionate 10 taxes paid.
If streets were improved under the
spiritual dispensation Of bearing one
another's burden" your plan OF compell-
ing all wards TO bear the street burdens
OF one ward would be impregnable, but
50 long as good streets are procurable
only on the carnal plan Of paying for
what one gets" your plan Of street i'm
provement will hardly, we think, obtain.
To our mind the only plan Of street i'm
provement not obnoxious to spOils is for
each street or locality 10 pay equitably
for It's Improvement, say two-thirds, the
city paying one-third. The justice Of this
principle was fully recognized when the
territory recently annexed agreed TO pay
for It's W Improvement. Unfortunately,
Il late decision of our court of appeals
fCrbids this and relegates us TO the "spoils
system" OF paying but getting no return,
but the equity of each locality paying
for its Improvement IS not thereby invali-
dated. II is difficult TO understand how
so judicial a journal as The Times can
come TO any other conclusion, and could
have written THE Streets and the Spells
System" We can see no more justice in
requiring one ward to pay for another
wards improvement, or even of one part
Of a ward unbeneicial paying for the
improvement Of another part thar in
requiring a neighbOr or The Times itself
to pay for our subscription 10 The Times.
and it will be difficult. we think. to con
vince the wards that "spOils' influence
councilmen in requiring expenditure OF
the street fun according TO wards, or at
least according 10 taxes paid. Councilman
will beat you every time on your own
ground and with your own weapons. AS
protectionists, we agree with The Times
that bonds at the expense OF all the wards
be Issued TO protect or Improve one ward,
for our interest lies in that direction; as
free traders, or even revenue reformers.
we favor each locality paying for its own
Improvement or going unimproved. b.
CThe distribution OF appropriations for
street improvements is no douDt a diiH-
cult problem practically.
The present method. however. Is un-
l~uestionably bad. and being so a more
excellent way should be adopted.
1t is indefensible to spend money In
wards for streets unnecessarily. merely TO
be spending 1t within certain arbitrary
boundaries. which are unknown to the
majority OF those who use the streets.
and to leave undone important improve
ments In an adjacent ward. TO the great
inconvenience OF the public.
The tax laid for Unnecessary work Is
an unjust tax. even II laid on the ward
where the expense is made, and very much
more unjust II laid on another ward.
All The ueopls have equal rights to move