The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-03-31

this point: because by contract the work
can be done for 70 per cent. OF what 1t
V ould cost II done by the city, does not
by any mears necessitate the contractors
workmen receiving only half as much
as the city's workmen. They would per-
haps as an average receive less, but the
methods OF contractor are mere care
fully studied for economy. and the move
ments OF his workmen are generally more
active than I'm the case Of the city's
doing the work. The work by contract
does not. therefore. necessarily involve
pnching the workmen's loaf, but II does
mean pinchlng up the 'oafer. Moreover
we are utterly opposed to the creation OF
any privileged class Of workmen or Office
holders. The city's work belongs 10 all
alike. to be awarded on business princi-
pies. and on these alone.
The long and the short Of this matter
is that those who voted for Mr.. Aliens
resolution have declared by their votes
that their oaths and their consciences
compel them to spend the public money
which is put under their control in a way
that will give all citizens an equal chance
ard secure 10 the public the largest ad-
vantage attainable, while those who voted
against 1t have declared that in their
judgment they have the right TO do with
the public money whatever they please,
by favoring chosen few and by paying
for whatever they purchase for the city,
not what It is worth. but what some
other reason or interest may lead them to
pay for it, Disguise It as you choose, this
is the naked issue between the parties.
1t would seem puerile TO point ont. by
argument the absurdity and injustice Of
such a proposition. But we ask those
who voted against the resolution few
questions: Are they not. in their repre-
sentative capacities, merely trustees for
the public and is not trustee bound
TO do everything for the interest OF those
he represents, in a given case that he
would do for himself in the same case
And would any one of them, If he want
ed a private sewer dug pay twice as
much as was necessary to have it done
properly? Of course he would not. We
ask them then how they can justify them
selves to their own consciences in making
this donation of public money when
in their own cases they would not do
it. AS a proposition Of morals and OF
law the idea cannot be entertained for
one moment, and logically it is robbery
Of the public and confscation Of private
property pure and simple. If the City
Council can lawfully pay double its
market value out of the public funds for
any work or material, then 1t can pay
any other sum that suits tit can pay
ten or twenty prices for anything else that
is purchased, and in brief, all proper
owned by taxpayers is owned by them
subject to a right in the City Council
to confscate it all at its pleasure. There
is no use in dallying about this matter.
This is the plain English Of 1t and II
is important that the public should
know Just exactly what that plain Eng
lish means.
Those who justify this astounding pro-
ceeding say that they must pay for Work
done by the city double what it is worth
in the markets in order TO retain Demo
cratic control of the city Of Richmond.
This is the same thing as to say tina.
as representatives they must squander the
public money to buy votes to vote the
Democratic ticket. For one, we say that
If this is Democracy, The Times may
be counted out Of the ranks OF Dem
ocracy. II we cannot retain Democratic
ascendency in the city on Democratic
principles, and without debauching me
voters. and squandering the public money
let the city's government pass under some
other control. We certainly can not have
a government Of which the foundations
are more rotten than those Of such a
structure would be.