The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-08-03

JAS. S. BAILEY.
H l.. KELLERS,
REUBEN SIMPSON,
Committee of the Whole.
Office of the Board of Finance,
Jersey. City. Aug. 9. 1897
Hon. Edward Hoos, Mayor.
Dear Sir-A communication signed by
you under date of July A. was received
by this Board at its meeting held on the
same date and referred to the Committee
of the Whole, who have reported this
letter in reply. The language used in your
communication is strange. so unlike
anything we have ever read or heard of
in a municipal document, except during
the heat of a political campaign, the
statements made concerning the financial
condition of the city and the conduct of
its financial affairs so incorrect that the
honor of the city, of this Board, and
of its individual members has compelled
us to make a complete answer as vo-
luminous if not more SO in detail, than
your paper and at least more indicative
of true knowledge of the affairs of the
city government. We desire to say first
of all that during our membership in this
Board there has been absolutely no poli-
tics in the Board. We have neither been
asked to do nor have we done anything
to help either party; the financial inter-
eSts of the city were in our hand and to
be able to render proper accounting of
our stewardship we could brook no po-
litical interference in our proceedings.
This document is subscribed to by four
members of the Board, evenly divided in
their political beliefs and affiliations.
The charter of Jersey City provides that
no more than majority of this Board
shall belong to one political party. Each
of us are as stalwart in our political be-
lefs as your Honor but uit al p6at Of US nd re
honor for the temporary advantage OF
either party. Believing that politics
should not be allowed to enter the pro-
ceedings of our Board, and having in our
minds solely the proper conduct OF the
city's affairs within our control, we felt
that we could aid any Executive in the
work of properly managing the business
of the city. Our experience in this Board
has shown us that while it is usual for
the disgruntled critics to tear down, it
has always been the province OF the
official to build up; of the two the hrst
is the easier task, but the most banefui
in its results to the city, and 1t is with
deep regret that we notice the foremost
position which your Honor has taken IN
those ranks by your communication.
Your immediate predecessor, while re
sponsible for our occupancy of the po-
sitions we hold, did not avail himself of
the opportunity presented him upon the
expiration of the term of two members
of this Board, after the municipal elec-
tion in April last, to change the partisan
complexion of the Board to that. of his
own particular political faith; for the the
not politics to be the basis of fitness for
membership in this Board
We believe that your Honor has been
imposed upon by someone enjoying your
confidence, who for reasons of his own
has placed you in an unpleasant light,
and so might add an absurd position, even
to the point of being ridiculous in the eyes
of those acquainted with the true condl-
ton of the financial affairs of the city, OF
which you have the high honor of being
the Chief Executive. The old charter of
Jersey City in defining the powers and
duties Of the Mayor directs he shall from
time to time convey his recommendations
to the various Boards for their considera-
tion upon matters pertinent to the scope
all ft1fal
of the city we fail to find manifested such
venom as that displayed in your communi-
cation of July IA. The Board of Finance
is not only condemned. but it seems to be
a general complaint against all the
Boards with an apparent desire to force
this Board to bear the responsibility for
every thing about which you complain:
With the general complaints we Will deal
generally: with the particular ones,
specifically, while this will be difficult
owing to the involved nature of your
paper, we will attempt it.
Your communication opens with the
charge that the city debt has been in
creased S777. % since December l, 1892.
Why you selected December l, 1882, as the
basis of your comparison we do not un-
derstand as the personnel of the Board
of that year and in fact the Board in
office up to April, 1894, was not OF the
selection of your immediate predecessor,
so that to be absolutely fair you should
have compared the debt of the city on
December /, 1S93 or December l, 1894, with
that on December l, 1896, which would
have shown the following
Gross debt December l, 1898. .$14, 127 ,421 81
Gross debt December /, 1884,. 4,267 ,561. 81
Gross debt December 1, 1897. -. 1886, 1S7. So
Not so much of an increase, but much
fairer comparison.
While we are ON that subject an
annalysis of the city debt in 1893 and 1896
will show more clearly than in any other
way just how this increase has been
created.
FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE
CITY ON DECEMBER /, 1892
LIABILITIES Except water accoun).
General account debt exhibit -
No. 23).... ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. Si,olooSl oo
Assessment account debt (Ex-
hibit No. 23). observation-disclosures. 4,S2S 30O W
Temporary loans exhibit No.
ii,nH hibit No s2) . ......... 4s5oo 90
s1a.111, $50 II
Unexpended appropriations
hibit iii No. No. 70. l ....... lss- -. slss17s 10
: hibit 1 No. SSS....s............ M -. . s5ss 12
hbit No. 29).. ................ 22S 65
'i hibit No. s0.................. 49, s4.7o4 o5
No. 80 .............. 80, ,2So 90
Interest on taxes 1891. 6769 II
Undivided liquor license fees 140012 IS
$40, ,7o5 90
Outstanding warrants
Old Jersey City. general. 49,. IS. .439 81
Jersey City, general ,...... 9518 SO
Jersey City, assessments 2,630 2S
Jersey City, special Streets. 257 so
'essan count No. 2........ .... ........ - s5 4s
$40, ,914 So
Surplus moneys received from
essS sessments. n , ETC.. s. - ss.s2s So
ing. S.s - ' ........... 2,s15 25
Awards for opening Dey street 1913 so
'seoup..e COUNT. 80. -. ......... 1884 %
taxes, etc. -: 80. 1926 80
Ssss Sewer, e eoliections.... .....s:. 80 s,211 %
Deposits, street improvements
and sewers. ....-.-.. sbl lu
| County Collector, taxes, 1884,. 57,740 10
Advertising adjusted tax sales 2.686 SO
under Martin Acf............ III g.
s77,223 II
$l3.62o.2 .22o 7a
| FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE
CITY ON DECEMBER l. 1896