The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-05-04

TOT tne largest, averaging about VIZ for
each Of the ~ voting district lists in the
city. All fees now allowed the board
VIII, by this amendment be hereafter
turned into the city treasury and a salary
Is liked py law in lieu thereof and In full
compensation for all services.
And here the advocates OF the proposed
amendment might properly rest their
case were IL not that, since the former
hearing, the City Council OF providencs
has added most singularly worded reso-
luton at the instance OF mem ber of the
common council from the Tenth Ward In
structiug the city solicitor to oppose here
"any amendments to the bill entitled.
ETC., relating to the salary or compensa-
tion. of the Board OF Ianvasssrs and
Registration"
While it is not our province to antici-
pate The argument Of the city solicitor, IL
may not be inappropriate TO here con-
slider some OF the objections which have
been publtcly urged against tho adoption
OF the proposed arlendment.
First. That Ii is an unjust exercise OF
the Legislative. power to thus increase
the burdens OF texation in Providence
against the express wish OF the represents
atives OF the tax payers themselves, 1. e.,
the city council.
This objection at first sight appears to
he great one and II is certainly entitled
10 careful and ssrious consideration, i'm
view OF the constitutional pro, isions
that "all laws should be made for tn,
good of the whole and the burdens f'thS
State ought to be fairly distributed
among its citizens" But upon more
careful examination it will be found to be
an apparent and not a valid objection
when viewed in the light OF the legisla-
tlon and policy Of tins State for more
than 40 years.
Let us compare in this respect Provi.
dence, which Is the richest and most pop
usous city in the state, with West Green
A nd leaa NJ
ulous town. The assessed valuation OF
the former Is to that of the latter as q
463 TO i. Under the State law az IL exists
| today West Greenwich must pay To the
members of its hoard of csnvassers upon
basis of the smallest number OF canvass
meetings permissible under state law,
that.is to say, one meeting for the annual
canvass in February, one for the state
election in April, one for the annual town
meeting in June, and in the present year,
one for the Presidential election In No
vember, the sum Of S4o, there being five
canvassers and clerk Of the board in that
town. III the city of Providence were to
pay at the same rate in proportion TO ita
valuation as IL now required by law in
the case of West Greenwich, the city
would pay 81, 224, or more than double
the amount proposed In the amendment.
But the board in Providence sits daily;
and the board In West Greenwich IN the
above comparison Is supposed TO hold but
four meetings In the year, this being the
least number permissible by law; II the
necessary to increase the number OF its
meetings until 1t should hold the maxi
mum permitted ny law to wit: Daily
sessions, as II may now do under the
State law In its discretion the town of
West Greenwich would have to pay by
State law to its board of canavssers. for
300 days sessions the sum of f36. 000 And
In like proportion Providence would b(
required to pay for daily sessions 46
times that amount, or ,666, 800.
While the aggregate amount repaired
by the proposed emendment to be- Eaid
by the city of Providence Is considernbIe
when taken by itself, 1t 10 nevertheless
literally true that the proposed amend.
ment would require the city to pay at
rate in proportion TO its valuation which
is less than one-hslt the minimum rate
now required by law OF the po orest and
least populous town In the State, and
which is less than one-one- hundredth OF
| the maximum rate which the same town
may he required to pay by existing law.
III a like comparison be MADE with q be
and richest town Ia the State, having
| population OF over II, 900 sHd an sssessed
valuation of over II, 900, 900. the city ul
| Providence would be required to pay f,l
daily sessions of its bcaro, II II paid q,
the same rate In proportion to its valua-
quired to pay in the event Of daily ses-
sions being held, the sum OF e432o0., or
more than four times the amount pro-
posed for providence which has
more than seven times the population and
more than twelve times the assessed
valuation. And in addition, the pro-
posed compensation for Providence pro-
vidss for all expenses dependant upon
rsgfNration OF over 49, 600 persona which
| expenses are not included in the cases OF
either OF the towns above specified.
Again 1t has been urged that II the
| State Is TO fix the compensation the State
should also pay the same. While there 10
| no objection TO this proposition In princi-
| pie, yet If the State Is TO pay 1t will un-
| doubtedly assert the right to anpoint,
and 1t may be, the State would see fit
| to appoint board composed wholly or
| in part of non-residents of Providence, as
has hitherto been done In numerous IN
| stances when commissions or boards have
been appointed by thu State to attend
| to special matters, notable example OF
| which was the commission appointed by
| the State to revise the ward lines OF said
| city which was composed OF one member
| from Providence, one from Pawtucket
| and one from Newport.
| Since Providence pays 10 or nearly Ia
| of the total state tax IN the event OF the
| state paying the compensation as above,
| Providence would still pay nearly one half
voice in the matter of the composition Of
| the board.
| But the City Council resolution opposes
| even payment by the State, or. In the
| language OF the resolution, "any amend
| ments" to existing law, whether AZ to
amount, method OF payment, the relin-
| quishment OF fees now allowed by law,
| or even the removal OF the statutory pro-
| hibition against the increase Of compen-
sation by the City Council itself Gin con-
sideration OF the imposition OF additional
| duties) during the present year. 1t thus
| appears that the evident design OF the
| framer az this resolution Is to retain per-
manent,y the present anomalous and IL.
logical Condition of affairs which is en-.
| bonied in the law as IL now stands.
For the foregoing reasons the movers
OF this amendment respectfully request q
favorable report from your committee
| thereon.
Appeal Against LOthaire's AcquitaL