Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-04-17
WEDSESDAY.... II, 1870
n,,i.inn of street Noney.

we are glad that there is TO be con
ference committee as to the csasree'hs
votes Of the Common Council and b0aiu
Of Aldermen in the matter Of the DIVISION
OF street funds. -,
+, Is a struggle between the oh "equaI
aidSoyi system and the system pro-
,,osed by the Finance Commute ~
which money shall be given 10 the Vafi-
Gus wards in proportion to their r011'' g
ments. .,.o
For many years It has been the practice
Of the Committee on Streets TO diYile '''e
street fund-fhat Is. 80 much Oh IL a
IN be applied 20 streets eehei""s
equally between the six wards. INC
.,.,,ts ~ tho several wards have not oeei
considered. a little ward gets as ihucn
a. a big ward. a ward that mas
craving from the city treasury lot Nv
,..ors GETS as much as q new ward \
ward that requires no new streets II pc
on footing with ward that f'qu"S7
dozens Of new streets.
Nothing more harmful or injurious
than this could well be imas'neu, Al
mis- very moment streets are beng ou'''
in localities that do not really need theHi'
while other localities cannot have sofhs
- tbe,r important streets guttered ana
curbcG.
Tho contest between the Board ana the
-o-,,,op Council is as to whether this
s,..teD, shall continue or Be abolished.
mo movement I'm this behalf was inau-
o,,rated In the Firence Committee. when
committee. after examining into the SUD
iset recommended an apportionment
hsssd On the needs OF the wards By
this plan the East and West-ends would
GET bigger slices than the middle wards
OF course, the recomme ndltons OF the
FINANCE Committee were subject 10
amendment. but the Common Council was
satisfied with the committees allotment
and adopted the committees report. Not
G., however. with the Board Of Alder
men The Board rejected the new plan
referring 10 leave the distribution oil
the street fund with the Committee on
streets
At the meeting OF the Board night BE-
fore last the Board refused to recede
from its position. and asked the Common
Council for a committee OF confer nee.
old customs are strong customs. and
oe can well understand (whle we do no.
,pprovel the motives OF the Board IN
-eiecting the new plan. TIL Board Is
unwilling 10 "cast any reflection upon
he Street Committee Besides, 1t has been
aid in the Board that the apportion-
nent proposed by the Finance Commit
,ee * unfair. II il Is unfair the Board
~ Aldermen and Common Council can
and ought TO rectify it. There can be no
question as to their power 10
do so. Hence, II is usele5s lot
either body TO complain Of hsures
that they can alter at VIII. 80
there is not much force in that objection
We do not admit that it casts any re-
nectton upon the Street Committee for
the city Council to adopt new system OF
distributing any OF its revenues. TO con-
c,ge any such thing would be to concede
that committee is superior TO the city
Council. But IL is q matter Of fact, we
believe, that there have always been
members of the Street Committee OPP
possd TO the equal" division system; men
who saw the injustice OF this arrange
ment, and who would have liked for the
city Council to step in and oyerrule the
majority OF the committee.
Now that public attention has been
drawn 10 the enormity Of the old system
Of division We have faith that something
better may be expected for the future. 1t
IS TOO bad that every ward should be
fighting for Itself. instead of every ,ward
nchting for Richmond. The ward idea is
narrow idea It Is unworthy OF the re-
presentatiyes OF this great city, and we
shall never prosper as We should until we
abandon a. 'r
We cannot say that the Common Coun-
ell viii win in the pending contest-there
may have 70 be compromise-but we pre-
diet that the result of this discussion
Will be TO awaken public attention to the
evil complained Of. In time the reform
that the public demands Will come-come
10 stay.
And here let us say, for the
benefit Of those persons who have
not kept themselves informed as
to the progress Of this con-
test that there is no question as 10 the
honest dealing Of any committee or any
Lublc servant. There rs no suspicion or
suggestion of "jobbery." Oh. no. not at
all. The simple question before our tax
payers is as TO the policy Of giving
10 wards that need little or no money
for street improvements as much money
as is given TO wards that need a great
deal of. money for street improvements
II the old system could be abandoned
and the new one adopted, we should see
the streets OF the East and West-ends
rapidly improved. and along with these
Improvements would come great activity
In house-building.