Staunton spectator and vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1896-1916, 1897-05-06
City Council.

, Inc city council had an interesting session
on Tuesday night. Several reports were made
one by majority of the Retrenchment Com
mlttee advising cuts in salaries, and one by
minority of that committee opposing salary
cutting. Police Justice Landes made repor
In regard to having leaky hydrants repaired
ana certain street Improvements of light
character were ordered. The reports of the
Ketrenchment Committee were laid on the
table to be acted on at the June meeting.
The following is the minority report above
alluded to which has not been elsewhere pub
lished
To the Hon. City Council.
Gentlemen-As minority of the Special
Committee on Retrenchment, appointed at
the last meeting of this body we beg leave to
submit the following setting forth of our rea-
sons for disagreeing with majority of said
committee in their proposed reduction of the
salaries of city employees.
In the first place we state without fear of
successful contradiction that the burden of
taxation in Staunton is lower than any other
city in Virginia, with the single exception of
Roanoke, and there the assessed value of real
estate is claimed to be exceedingly high.
In the second place we are prepared to show
that the salaries paid our city officials are |
25 per cent less on an average that the other
cities of the State.
In the third place we are of the opinion /
that competent men should be paid for their |
services in an amount upon which they can
live comfortably, and pay their debts honest
ly, and that they should not be compelled to
cramp or pinch their families in order that /
the city may carry out sentiment that RE |
trenchment" must be practiced, regardless of /
the fact that it is not necessary 1T should be |
done.
We are furthermore clearly of the opionlon |
fully protect the Sinking Fund, to pay the in |
terest on the interest bearing debt, and leave
a sufficient surplus to run the various depart |
ments of the city and leave the salaries as |
they are.
In view of these facts we take the ground 1
that the proposed cut is unnecessary and un-
just and must therefore dissent from the
majority report.
Respectfully submitted,
G. T. HAMMOND,
E. W. STEWART.
Norfolk Mayor, 1900; Police Justice, $500;
Overseer of Poor, 800; City Atty, 1000;
States Atty. 1000; Supt. Of W: W., 1900;
Supt E: L., private; Chief Fire Dept,
1,5OO; Minute men, 10 call; Clerk Market,
600 and 10 per cent; Supt. of st. Hands,
1000 Chief Police 1,5O0; Capt, $50; Segt,
$50; Policemen, 637; Col of Taxes, Ii
com; Tax Rate, Ito.
Lynchburg Mayor. 1900; Overseer of Poor.
6OO City Atty. 1000; States Atty, 1900
Dept 1000 Minute men. $780, Clerk of
market. 4SO; Supt st. hands, 4S0; Chef
Police 1,2OO Policemen, 728: Col of Tax
es, not to exceed $500; Tax Rate, 1.5O.
900; Police Justice. 600;
Overseer of Poor. 800; City Atty, 600;
States Atty, 500; Clerk of Market, 100
and asst; Supt. st. hands, $50 and clean
Col of Taxes, per cent com; Tax Rate,
Petersburg-Mayor, 1900; Police Justice, fees;
Overseer of Poor, 500; City Atty, 500;
States Atty 300; Supt. W. W., $50; Chief
Fire Dept, $50; Minute men, 100; Clerk
of Market, 800; Supt: st. hands, $40 and
600: Col of Taxes, fees; Tax Rate 16O.
1900 City Atty, eco; Supt.
W. W.. 1000; Chief of Police, 800; Police
men. 72O; Col of Taxes. fees; Tax Rate,
18Th
Mayor, 25OO; Police Justice, 1900;
Overseer of Poor. 1900; City Atty 2250;
States Atty. 1000; Supt. W. W., $500;
Supt E. L., 275O; Chief Fire Dept, 100;
Minute men, 600; Supt. st. hands, 900;
Chief of Police, 1000; Policemen, 912 so;
Col of Taxes. fess; Tax Rate. 40.
$50; Police Justice, 300,
Overseer of Poor. 200: City Atty, $50;
States Atty, $50; Supt. W. W., 72O; Supt.
E. l., $40; Chief Fire Dept. 100; Minute
men. 100; Clerk of Market, 72O; Supt. st.
600; Chief of Police 720; Policemen, 600;
Col. of Taxes, fees: Tax Rate, 1.25.