The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-03-18
r,.r v,rcrnrc PLANT AGAIN.


issue favoring an electric plant ior '"0 WY
The ayouments OF the article are;
First. Richmond needed an ornamental. I"y
Hail and she therefore built one 'hat cos.shei
certainly million and quarter OF dollars
and will probably cost her million ana a h"n'
=. 5oos not lie ia the mouth of city that can
s,end this enormous sum on an ornamental
| C;tv Hall. to plead that il is too poor to erect
=, electric plant for lighting the streets and
public buildings.
Second. The annual interest on the sum
which the City Hall cost would equal perhaps
half of what it is now proposed to spend on
an electric plant This being so. the cost IS
| too small to terrify us out of movement to
light the streets with electricity, because thal
| has come to DO a necessity. We believe we
have stated our contemporary's arguments
| fully, and with perfect fairness, and we shall
now answer them to the best of our ability as
stated. and we remark
First. Our Main-street contemporary Will not
find all the people Of Richmond united IN the
belief that the city. in its present financial con-
dition. was justified in erecting City nan as
elaborate and ornamental as ours ~. we De-
ieve il will find an overwhelming consensus
of opinion that We had no right. in our pres
ent financial state to spend 81 600 In erect
ing q city hall. 30 that its first proposition
assumes what will by no means be conceded
to wit. that the city needed such an elaoo-
rate hall as she has built, and that her citi-
zens approve Of her spending S1.5OO.OJ0 on
hall. We believe we are safe in saying that
an overwhelming majority Of her citizens con-
denim her act in spending that sum on city
hall with her finances in the condition that
they are in.
Second Having assumed that it was all
right to spend 81 100000 on a City Hall, our
contemporary next argues that it does not lie
in the mouth of a city that can spend this inn
mense sum in such cause. to plead that 1t IS
too poor to erect an electric plant. But 1t IS
denied that we should have spent 100000
on the City Hall. II is insisted that Rich
mond was in no condition to do this. How
ever, as it has been done, we insist that
we have strained our resources as far as we
are now justified in straining them. and
we point in proof of il to our high tax tate on
the one hand, and to the deprecated price of
our bonds on the other. We cannot dispose
OF our four per cent bonds at %, when
they should be as good as the best four per
cent. bonds and these sell above 12O. The
Dispatch argues that because we have spent
all we have got. therefore we should spend
some more. We argue that having spent all
we have got, we should cut off expendi-
lures until we get something more.
Third. Itdoes lie in the city's mouth 10 say
that she is too moor TO build an electric plant,
even if she has spent 81. 100000 on a City Hall.
That expenditure. together with others, have
made our burdens larger than they ought to
be. We do not hesitate to say that taxation
in Richmond s as high as it ought 20 be and
verges closely upon oppression. While the
rate is nominally no higher than in many
other cities, yet property in those cities is
lightly assessed, while in Richmond it is as
sessed to It's full value. This makes the tax
alton here very burdensome. The man that
owns and lives in his dwelling in Richmond
has to pay a fair rent for it as taxes. 1t is not
an agreeable thing to parade this fact before
the world, but it is o fact that we have got TO
recognize, and halt should be called in
adding to our burdens.
In the second branch of its argument, our
contemporary urges that as what is NOW
asked for an electric plant will only be about
double the interest on what the City Hall cost
.the sum is too trifing TO be considered in
comparison with having the streets lighted by
electricity. This proposition contains three
falacies: First. that we can afford to spend
the money even though comparatively a
small sum; second that the sum to be spent
would be small because only a small sum is
now asked for. aad third that the streets
would be without electric light if the city
should fail to build its own plant.
We have already disposed of the first Of these
falacies As to the second, our experience
in building a City Hall should be a perpetual
warning to us. We went into that piece of
business with the assurance that twould cost
less than 100000, and we now find it is to
cost 8, 500 600. So it would turn out with an
electric plant If we go into that on the basis
of $125, 900 we may feel certain that we will
not come out under half million. What is
NOW asked for is very small! part of what
WILL BE asked for before we are through
As to the third fallacy. we have already
shown that the city can purchase light for the
streets from the Electric Light Company ope-
rating here for much less than it can possibly
furnish that light, 50 that the streets can get
all the advantages of electric lighting without
tho citys erecting a plant. and at much /
smaller cost to the taxpayers.