The enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 188?-1899, 1893-12-27
RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES

OF the Incorporate Village of Wellington |
Under the Mayorship of W. r. wenn.
A statement of expenses paid during the |
four years of W. r. wean's mayorship,
and containing all items contracted |
during his terms and paid by sub
sequent administration, as taken from
clerks book by ]. w. Houghton, r. N.
Goodwin and w. r. Wean, December 90,
1S03
With no purpose to stir up controversy
or i'll feeling, but solely with view to
correct widespread misapprehension
with reference 10 the expense of euiorcing
the ordinance against selling intoxicating
liquors aud the resulting abolition of the
saloons under W. r. Wean's mayorship,
/. c., that it was very expensive to the cor.
poration and burdensome to the tax.pay-
! ers, we have made careful examination
Of the books and find that, owing 10 some
items OF expense baving been enormously
included, the result is more favorable TO
his administration than that given in Mr..
Wean's public address by about 800 The
footings are as follows:
Amount of fines and licenses
placed in the treasury during the
four years of Mr.. Weaus admins
tration, $10S1 20
Expenses paid during same
four years and including all items
contracted during his term and
paid by subsequent edministra-
tions, 53l 39
Amount Of fines and liscenses
paid into the treasury In excess Of
costs by W. r. Wean during said
term, $50 90
Amount Of fines and licenses
paid into the treasury during the
first four years subsequent 10 W.
X. Weau's administration us per
statement of treasurer, 4G2 %
Amount Of fines and licenses
put into the treasury in excess "f
costs during subsequent four
years, $40 0j
Amount paid into the treasury
by w. r. Wean during his tNo
terms in excess of costs, exceeds
the amount paid in, in excess 0t
costs during subsequent four
years by POI Ii
Thus II appears that enforcing the or.
dinance against liquor selling was not an
expense to the corporation; thnt the tax.
payers were not hurdened. On the con.
p trary 1t appears that it was more economi.
cal to enforce than moi 10 enforce the or.
t dinances in question.
! Bear In mind also that the sulouns wen,
Q out and staid out till llr. Wean's admins.
t tration closed, and who will claim thai
I even if it had cost the corporation $500 70
, afFec; this result it would not huye been
money well spent?
On the contrary, however, the saloons
, were put out and the corporation treasury
was richer by S53l.32. To settle the con-
7 troversy beyond dispute We introduce still
, another comparison, eliminating all other
Z. sources nf income aud expense, except the
fines and costs from prosecutions under
e the anti.salonn and auli.gumbllng ordi
: nances we find that the total received fUl
6paa ~ ahnvn L. $3.50 10
Total pad out for all costs OF
!, enforcing said ordinances, includ-
ing counsellor's fees, S5% 3.
Balance to credit of said pros
ecutions, SO L
This shows the net result OF enforcing
: the ordinances, ana under either view, th,
village has been the gamer financially, a
i well as socially and morally.
The itemized account from which thps,
figures have been obtained are on file ant
will be submitted for examination to an,
one desiring more particular information
We repeat, this statement was not ont
is not again, made, with any purpose L
}, excite antagonisms, but TO set at rest tn
}. claim that 1t has been so expensive 10 en-
force the local option ordinance that It |
unjustifable to attempt it.
This is a question Of fact, ami figure
are on record TO settle It, and II an
% further doubt remains an invitation |