San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1894-04-21

admonish you of the fact that this
city has an outstanding bonded
debt Of $1,273,500-that of this
amount 100000 have been created
and expended for street improve
ment purposes. Shall other public
improvements Of more lasting
and economic beneficial nature
give further away to this sole pur-
pose? OF what avail are charter
powers given to the people for pub
lie water and sanitary sewerage, IL
the peoples representatives deny
the people the right to express
their wishes in the matter ? but,
on the contrary, insist that it's en-
tire substance shall be expended
for the sole purpose of street i'm
provements, and this notwithstand-
ing the living exemplification be-
fore us that this line of policy has
led to the city's financial discom-
torture.
PAST INVESTMENTS A DEAD LOSS.
would further call your atten-
ton to the fact that out of the
bonded debt Of 81, 273, 800, heretofore
created, not a dime has been in
vested in that class of public i'm
provements which brings in a
cents worth Of yield, return or re-
venue to the city. The very re-
verse Is true, for it has been ex-
penced in that class of invest
ments which entail a constant out
lay for maintenance and repairs,
until it has at length reached that
magnitude where it is impossible
to keep this class of work in decent
repair out of the current revenue
Of the city. To my mind it Is
astonishing that gentlemen are to
to be found, who are
not ayerse to largely in
creasing the city's bonded debt
for class Of public improvements,
which is a dead investment, and
will give no return, and who are
yet unwilling to invest that same
money in lasting improvements
that will certainly be self-sustain.
ing and bring yield to an over
burdened people. There is an APP
parent consistency in the few who
advocate policy of stagnation and
retrogression, for this class there is
no hope, but l confess, myself, too
obtuse to understand or fathom the
reasons Of those who profess them
selves willing to create debt that
will give nothing in return, and OPP
pose the use Of the same money
that will most assuredly give large
returns, and at the same time
bring health and comfort to the
people. No sane man would think
Of so investing his own personal
capital, then why should the
rule vary when the same econo-
omic questions becomes public
ones! To properly answer the in
quiry one would have to descend
into the slums and purlieus Of sor-
did self interest for an answer, and
l therefore desist at the present
time from saying more than that
the one stands for the aggrandiz-
ment Of corporate gain the other
for the gain Of the people, In its en-
tirety.
FAVOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
THAT WILL YIELD REVENUE.
am not opposed or afraid to
spend money on lasting public i'm
provements and issue bonds there
for when knowledge, experience Of
other cities, and exact calculations
assure the fact that instead Of
being burden it will be a finan.
cial relief to the people. That it
will bring them health, comforts
and conveniences such as they
have never enjoyed before,
and this without the augmentation
of taxes. On the contrary, howev-
er, l am opposed to the further
issuing of bonds that brings forth
bounteOus crop OF thistles and
thorns, but which bears no fruit.
To be plain mean street improve
ments. l fully realize that the
question will be raised at once that
we must have streets and can't do
without them. So say |, and if the
policy of this administration is fol-
lowed out we will have them, but
we will have them without the
need of issuing long interest bear
ing bonds. Many of the people
seem to have been educated up to
the idea that all works of public
utility must of necessity be car
ried on by the issuing of bonds.
This line of policy is the high road
to ruin. Bonds which bring no re-
turn on the property in which the
money is invested, is dangerous
1t would bring ruin to