Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1893-09-01
The Loan Was Legally Carried.
"a communication.

manner In which the question OF loan
for new school building in Woodstock
was determined August %, 1893, and dc.
claring such result illegal, desire TO
present to tho HERALD readers some
views. facts and figures at variance with
the assertions made therein, and the
conclusions therein arrived at.
The article alluded to begins with q
palpable error, or at least, very mis-
leading statement. 1t says, Tho vote
stood III in favor of the loan and 30
against it," and later on follows this state
ment "eleven votes, all opposed to the
loan were thrown out on q technicallty."
thus tending to create an Impression Il
81 votes had gone to the polls to vote
against the loan.
We looked through the HERALD in vain
for a statement Of the vote as counted By
the judges, and canvassed by the COM
mssioners, of election, as is the rule 10
reporting the result of an election. We
dare not question the right of any one,
for purposes OF argument, or otherwise,
to put his construction upon matter of
this kind, but do deny the right to do 80
10 a way to make it appear such an
nouncement was that Of the officers Of
u
| individual and, perhaps, that of partisan.
The official report was 2l1 votes cast,
OF which "for loan received Ill, against
loan" 20, with IL illegal ballots.
OF the eleven illegal, or defective, bal
lots, one read "for no lot," one was "for
against loan" and nine had simply the
word against" and were not counted
when the ballot was either for or against
a specific thing.
The word property holders" was "liber-
ally construed" it ID true, seeing that had
restrictive meaning been intended, the
words "tax payers" would, or should,
have taken its place in the charter, and
the determination Of what constitutes
Taxpayer" defined by the evidence Of
the assessors books. In the absence Of
90 plain and clear phrase and limitation
of voting, (which would bave rendered
clear and emphatic what restriction was
intended. the word property holders"
was construed. not so much "liberally,"
as it was literally. IL was clearly not in
the power of the judges TO make re-
strictiOn of voters when neither the IN
tended restriction, if any, nor the bound
aries and manner Of such restriction were
defined.
There was no challenge or contest at
the polls against the ruling Of the judges
as to the meaning of the word property
holders" nor was there any against "some
who Tpon their own testimony are non
residents were permitted to vote" Those
opposing the loan voted men who had
registered on the day of election as well
those favoring the loan. Their objection,
| . 10 r., 20 IF o.
which they awaited themselves at the
time, are valleless. 1t seems to me 1t we're
the better part Of Weldon to have made
the objection before, rather than after
the fact A privilege one party bad, but did
not exercise when the opportunity offered,
should cot now be raised when, through
their own gross negligence, that party
failed to avail themselves or it. The
question of who should vote on new regis
| trations was decided IN this case, Especial
election, upon the unanimous interpeta-
ton of the law as laid down by the legal
fraternity, as consulted.
The HERALD says that "a careful ca D
vass of the registration books and the
ystes pOlled show conclusvely that the
proposition for loan was legally defeat
ed. It :hen admits that if the construc-
ton put upon the word property holders"
was correct, the proposition Of for the
| loan was carried.
We propose to show that the proposition
Of for loan Was legally carried. Against
the assertion made by the HERALD, we
advance a careful canvass" Of the regis
traton book and the property book OF the
corporation, which shows eliminating all
the so-called non residents, all the new
registrations on the day of election, which
we're manifestly in favor Of the loan, and
restricting the right to vote on the ques-
ton to those only who were assessed in
the property books of the corporation for
the year 1899, that the proposition for
loan was carried by times, at the least,
a majority over the requisite two-thirds
majority required 10y the charter and thus
counting ali the property-holders who did
not vote as voting against loan,' when we
can prove in any court Of justice that at
least half of those not able to vote, would
have voted with for The loan.
Again. the same Careful canvass" OF
the registration and property books Of
corporation shows that those voting for
the loan represented three times, and over,
the taxable property in the corporation
of those voting against the loan.
The memoranda of all these statements
are in our possession and can be produced
and verified in court at short notice.
| We only hope that "the patriotic citi-
zeus of the town irl appeal 10 the
courts and have their rights fully pro-
tected." 1t reminds us are not so Young
as some of Us nor so old as others. of an
experience Of our younger days, when 1t
was the policy OF a certain Leadership oil
the town to suffer defeat at the polls and
then inauguraie a clustering show of con-
test, that always ended in a second and
more inglorious defeat than the first. Let
there be s contest and the question be
decided twice. IL 'twere done, 'twere
we'll it we're done quickly
We agree with the HERALD fully that
'it tax Of S., 900 can in this way be i'm
posed upon our town, tax Of $4,000
can be placed upon our property by ques-
tionable means." We 90 further and say
the same of a tax Of Sl00,000,0O0, but no
one need ever fear Of any one loaniHg the
corporation of Woodstock either OF the
latter amounts. The amount of loan
does not depend so mnch upon what is
asked as what the creditor is willing to
give.
In conclusion, we regret the HERALD
and the town council can not igure nearer
each other on tue amount of the school
revenue. There are a number Of items in
the list of last years expenses, which the
HERALD puts in as necessary expenses"
though, it would seem, that no former
council ever considered them such. Suffice
IL, the town council claim to see their
way 10 continue the improvements began
and save from the revenues OF the town q
sufficient amount to meet the additional
expenses. By wise management they
can doit.
We regret that in this discussion the
statement has been made that the reve-
nues would not be sufficient to meet thu
necessary expenses (of the town II The
improvements made in some sections Of the
to,on were extended to all other less fdrored
secfions of the corporation, from the fact
that this compels comparison or 80, and
comparisons are both "J6orous' and |
"odius." We are authorized TO say that a
statement In detail of every improvement
made and the state of the section where
made previons to the improvement. 10 in
course of nreparatiop. and will in due time |