Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-02-05

O.rfI
Eight engineers, 1850 each .......... 1880 90
Three tillermen, $50 each ....... $50 90
Eleven hostlers. $50 each ...... 9.2O 90
Eight helpers, 1910 each ........... $40 90
Twelve station-men, $40 each m 10OS0 90
Twelve hosemen permanenO, 500
edcn -............. ................... 100 90
Six laddermen, (permanenD
$500 each ....~.... ................. $500 90
Thirty-eight horsemen tat calD
$40 each ............ ............... s,l20 90
Seventeen laddermen tat calD s2i0
tdcH ........... ................ ...... 4OSO 90
After discussing the statement at some
length the committee decided to take 1t
up for further consideration at the next
meeting of the committee. which will be
held next Thursday night.
THE CITY COLLECTORS OFFICE.
The committee next resumed it's inquiry
into the City Tax Collectors duties and
compensation, and Clerk Mcdowell read
the statement of Captain Frank w. Cum
ningham at a recent meeting of the com
mttee.
Mr.. Jones went into some figures from
the Tax Collectors Office showing that
this official. during the year 1896 received
1924 for his services, out of which he
had to pay, according to his own state
ment. 5000 or a little more, for his assist
ance in the conduct of the office.
Mr.. Ebel moved, in order to bring the
matter before the committee that the
City Tax Collector be paid 1-2 of per
cent, instead of rs of per cent. He said
the committee was not on hand to con-
slider the sums that the Collector paid TO
his assistants. but to consider what
amount the city was paying for the col
lection OF taxes. He said the Collector OF
Taxes for the city of Richmond was really
a receiver of taxes and not a collector OF
taxes. Mr. Ebel said that by reducing the
Collectors compensation to this extent
would mean to pay him $500. The Madi-
SON. Ward member was of the opinion that
this would be ample compensation for the
office.
Mr. Rountree was Of the opinion that
the office was an important one, and that
as the Collector had to give bond in the
sum of $4,000 the sum Of $500 was not
sufficient compensation.
The reports Of the city departments for
1891 1892 and 1893 touching the affairs OF
the Collectors office were read, and II
was ascertained that the Collector re-
ceived something over 5000 for his work
I'm 1891. Mr.. Ebel stated that the office
was one increasing I'm revenue. and he
felt that the sum of IL Of per cent was
ample.
+.
referred TO the cut the committee had
made in the commissions Of the Commits
sioner OF the Revenue. saying that this
reduction meant cut of IA of per cent,
and would put the compensation Of the
Commissioner at less than $4,000 per am
mum.
Mr.. Harrelson moved to amend the mo-
ton of Mr. Ebe so as TO fix the compen-
sation Of the Collector OF Taxes at SIS of
1 per cent and this was adopted.
After great deal of debate. the COM
mittee reconsidered it's action by which
Mr. Harrelson's amendment was passed.
and Mr.. Noble offered as substitute
that the compensation of the Collector
of Taxes be fixed at 9-16 of per cent.
This was finally voted down. and Mr..
Harreson's proposition to reduce the pay
of the City Collector from rs of l per-
cent to 5-S finally prevailed
There then followed an informal dis
cussion upon the matter Of how the
committee should proceed TO further re-
duce salaries and the body decided that
every department should be gone
through an every mans pay dealt with
according TO the merits Of the case.
The committee then adjourned.
other Committee Meetings.
A regular session of the Committee
Room No Of the City Hall last night
at which only routine business was
transacted. The committee received a
petition from one of the ladies' organi-
cations OF ST. Peters Cathedral, asking
for permission to use the drill hall of
the First Virginia Regiment Armory for
two weeks during the month OF April.
i'm which to hold a bazaar. The request
was granted
The payroll OF the department was
approved.
The Committee on Accounts and Print
ing held a special meeting last evening. |
and awarded the contracts for city sta
tonery and binding. There were pre-
sent Chairman Pollock and Messrs |
Bahen. Bloomberg. and Hawkins. The |
contracts were awarded to the lowest |
bidders as follows:
Stationery-To the Everett Waddey |
Company.
Blank-book work. iob-ruling. etc.-To
the j. W. Randolph Company.
fampnler. olndlng, Quarter-Dindlng, |
etc-To Messrs Taylor & Epps.
Mr. j. H. Lawder. who was elected a
member of the Board of Aldermen from
Marshall Ward. to succeed the late
Joseph r. Mountcastle, yesterday filed
his certificate Of qualification with City
Mr. Lawder has been assigned 10 the |
following committees: Streets, Grounds
and Buildings. Accounts and Printing.
and Fire Department.
The Ordinance All Right.
Mr.. H. l.. Carter. a member Of the
Board of Aldermen from Clay Ward.
recently raised the question, which was
referred to the City Attorney for his
ons,.fon that the ordinance reducing the
salary of the City Engineer by $1,000.
making IL $1,000 instead OF 5000, was
not properly constructed. az it would
wipe out the Engineers compensation
entirely. The CITY Attorney takes
different view OF the matter. however.
and gives his opinion as follows:
'In reply TO an inquiry of yours. J re-
port that | am Of opinion that the ordi-
nance reducing the salary OF the CITY |
Engineer by $1,000 does not affect the
balance of his salary. The ordinance de-
clares upon its face that 1t reduces the
salary by 81 900. A reduction by $1,000 Is
not an abolition of 5000
1.-The ordinance also shows upon It's
face that where IL comes In conflict with
another ordinance only to a certain ex-
tent. that then the whole OF the former is
not to be repealed. but only the conflict
ing portion. The language OF the re-
pealing section of the ordinance 20 b.
is: 'All ordinances parts of
ordinances. or resolutions In conflict with
this ordinance are hereby repealed
''Such language shows that the intent
Of the Council was not TO repeal In full
the ordinance fixing the salary OF the
city Engineer. but only to the extent OF
the amount by 1900.