The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-08-19

1T must be evident tnen lnat Inns boaru
has neither the power nor the oppor-
tunity to use these moneys for current
expenses, and your charge Is as utterly
WITHOUT foundation as the others Pre- b
millions collected under the Martin Act
were paid into the treasury of the Sink
ing Fund Commissioners, borrowed from
the money used to pay the current ex-
penses Of the city: That is exactly what
snng hssn as a9n The The g1nag snegn : ana n1 n om the
missioners did not expend it. They loaned
it to you. You spent it.. You did not pay
current expenses. what did you do with
it? You say that the funds were in
vested by the Sinking Fund Commits
money to YOU you issued nss and n
sold them TO the Commissioners; and a
nice lot of paper they are. You issued
redemption of land bonds" These are
to be paid when some one redeems lands
which the city bought in at tax sales be-
cause. no bidder could be found who would
pay the amount due for taxes and assess
auction. The city bought the property
and then you arranged with the Sinking
amount paid, You got the money and
the Sinking Fund got your promise to pay
when the auction business improved. The
Sinking Fund Commissioners loaned this
money on the basis of the value of this
land. You borrowed it on the representa-
tion that the land was worth the amount
| borrowed. 1t Is NOT pTODaDle. 1t is hardly
possible. that any members of your Board
eyer examined single piece of the land
thus mortgaged to the Sinking Funds. It
IS charitable, in view of the results of
sales of the fee in these lands, to suppose
that you did not even know the location
of the lots upon which you were borrow
There are over $500, 600 of these 'sredemp-
ton of land bonds held by the Sinking
Fund. Not content with this, new taxes
We're levied on the lands. IT, at well ad-
a lot will not 1>,-;.,< +t,<
municipal liens adjusted against it, what
do you think of putting more taxes upon
it. after it It's is gnr,c,hased by the city and
ers to loan you money to be paid out of
these additional taxes? That is exactly
what you did when you borrowed from
You answer that the money in the Sink
ing Funds must be invested. But why in
vest It in promises to pay when the un-
been anxious to defend your course seem
TO think they have. done SO when they
say tn that sod the FOB bonds IN the Sinking Funds
sequent tax bonds.'' There are over 500 :
600 Ct chem in the Sinking Funds. So far
taxes they are absolutely worthless. for
when the lands on which the subsequent
taxes were assessed are sold, experience
near enough to redeem the redemption
of land" bonds. But if you tack on to the
promise to pay out of the '1subsequent
taxes, which will never be collected, the
Endorsement of the city, then these bonds
are worth as much as any other bonds
bearing the same rate of interest, because
Judgment can be obtained upon them and
the amount placed in the tax levy of some
unfortunate year to come. This places
the bond in its true light. 1t is an ad-
dition to the city debt, to be extinguished
by future taxation and not from ac-
cumulations in a reserve fund. 1t is not
N lar aara hot
issue these bonds, and used the proceeds
in paying current expenses, you were not
using money borrowed in anticipation of
the collection of past due taxes, but were
using money to be collected in some
future levy, if at all? Take from these
bonds the city's Endorsement and make
them charge only against the amounts
to be obtained from the sale of lands
against which they are a charge, and
their worth would be probematical in
deed. Endorsed with the city's promise to
pay by future taxation, they obtained
their value from that Endorsement No
one doubts that the bonds of Cuba pay
able out of the first revenues of a
recognized republic would be worth pal
if indarsed by the United States Your
communication asserts that there were
$2,95 800 of bonds paid by the Sinking
Fund Commissioners, from December l,
1891 to May !, 1897 AS the city debt in
creased $S00,000 in that period, it is quite
plain that you have reckoned that every
"
paid. Let me offer suggestion in the
interest of large exhibits. If you make
all the securities thirty days notes and
renew them twelve times year, in the
next five years you can show that we
have paid off an amount far in excess of
the assessed value of the town.
You ask me to recall that in the winter
of 1892 the city could hardly float a six
per cent. bond at par Not having your
aggregated imagination, | cannot recall
anything of the sort. This city has not
issued six per cent. bond in over
thirteen years. In 1891 there were issued
81, ,4e9, 900 five per cent bonds to renew
maturing assessment bonds These are
a twenty-five year bond, not necessarily
payable in gold. In 1893 and 1884, assess
ment bonds matured to the amount of
81, 300, ,O00 These were renewed by issuing
thirty year five per cent. bonds, principal
and interest payable in gold. You will
see that the building up under the late
administration did not result in obtaining
money at lower rate of interest on a
thirty year gold bond than was secured
upon a bond having five years less time
value in 1891. You could have avoided
your misstatement by examining pages
46-49 OF the Comptroller's report for the
year ending last December
l have, since my first communication
upon this subject. been presented with
several subsequent tax bonds" to be
used as the basis of loans from the
Sinking Fund to the general account.
l decline TO sign these bonds, and shall
not hereafter assent 10 the iOan1QR OF
the Sinking Fund upon any security that
is not above assault. The sinking Fund
must not be made instruments for the
increase of the city's debt.
The fact that 1 appointed an Assist
ant Corporation Attorney, at a salary OF
| 81 500 a year, causes you unnecessary
grief. l made the appointment because
found that, in very important matters,
the city's interests had been neglected
| by the law department. During the year
l expect to have from the Assistant Cor
poration Attorney services which will
| prove the wisdom of the appointment.
| You decline to make an appropriation for
his salary, and | presume that you dc
| it in the same spirit of economy which
has moved you to pay out about $16,0O(
for extra counsel for whose services
there would not have been any need il
| the law officers of the city had performed
| the full measure of their duty.
On the question of fixing salaries in the
| tax levy you display, for the letter of the
law, a newly born regard that might be
animation. Why, will you inform me
was the salary list of the Fire Depart
rnent, increased after last Aprils cleo
ton? 1t was done under a statute pass
1885 as in 1897. Why did you wait until
| this year before increasing the salaries
| of that department? The fact that stat
| utes have been passed fixing minimum
| its employees agreeing to a reduction
| The city cannot stand the tax rate that
| you have fixed. 1t is extravagant and
/ decline to be party TO its making
| You refer me to what you call the Char
ter of 1889, and insist that it refers te
| the budget that you have fixed
as the basis Of the tax levy
| am informed that the duty of fixing the
| budget devolves upon your Board alone
| and that your work must be done during
..fl 1lx- al