Evening journal., 1899-03-31
lAIRqt1MnNr Non WANTED.


this letter OF his which appeared in the
Morning News OF yesterday. 1t is a
forcible exposure OF the mlsrepresenta-
tions made to Governor Tunnel by the
delegation OF water surplus grabbers
which went to Dover against the Pyle
water bill:
To the Editor Of The Morning News.
Sir: / have always been told that
figures won't lie, but after reading the
report OF the Water Department on the
Pyle bin. as published In your paper OF
the 18th, my faith in the old adage has
been considerably shaken. Either the
department has been Juggling with the
facts and figures or possibly they may
have passed through the hands OF a
kellar and thus been transformed be-
fore getting in cold type. The very
first and vital statement, as every
property holder knows. Is not true
Permit me to copy Il. There are 1924
houses in the city, owned by 6,732 per-
sons, 50 you will notice number Of
places would have their taxes in
creased, while the occupiers OF their
houses would have their water rents
diminished. This statement, as all
know, is not true in any particular, for
owners OF property and not occupiers
OF renters pay tho water tax, and these
same owners will get the benefit OF an
the reduction the Pyle bin will bring,
which will more than pay for the in
crease in taxes on all, or nearly all
lower priced houses In the city Then
follows tabulated statement Of the
number OF houses that pay sew
eral amounts Of taxes and water tax
ending with the surprising conclusion
that the new law will produce an in
creased tax rate on all property Of II
per cent.
But what has become Of the 40 per
cent. reduction on water rates? IL the
figures 0f the department are correct
as given how is II that every house
owner will have to pay If per cent.
more In the uity treasury. while at the
same time there win be $4,000 less
paid In under the working OF the new
bill? To my mind the Water Depart
ment is wlfully withholding the
truth from the pubilc. for a larger
amount paid IN could not In any way
produce $4,000 deficit, but would, on
the contrary, add $4,000 to the annual
100000 receipts OF the Water Depart
ment
have not hccess to their books, but
50 far as my own experience goes, and
from information gained from other
property y-oWners, they differ widely
from the departments figures In one
OF their first lists they state that
houses ASSESSED at from s., 900 to So 900
are only paying IS water tax. / can
point TO scores OF houses that are as
sessed Dor less than 81 800 that are To-
day paying water tax OF S12 and s13
a house l sold two years ago for 92,-
900, assessed FOR Sl,S0O, has paid a
water tax OF Sl2 Dor the past eight
years, and the latter part OF that time
dt has paid Sl3 Yearly In water taxes,
Another In which am interested ia
assessed at $4,000 and pays Sls water
tax: another assessed at $500, pays
water tax OF SIS. friend OF mine has
a house assessed at the same. and pays
water tax OF SIG. And these are but
q fair average Of hundreds OF houses
all over our city
Look at these figures once more.
Properly valued at from $1,000 10 S3,-
600 pays water tax Of IS. II we refer
TO their price. per sp.got we find they
are charged s. for a hydrant, either In
kitchen or yard; 50 Tor bath tub; 81 for
wash pave and 81 for closet. making a
total OF Sl2 and In many cases SO when
certain kinds OF closets are used, and
there are very few houses built that
have less than four spgots. Within
the past eight years there have been
buiA within radius OF two squares
from Eighth and Franklin streets at
least 200 houses, and not one OF them
sa far as I saw them during their con.
struction. have less than the above.
named splgcts. ard many have two
more, malcing a water tax OF s14. ana
or neanig all, the properties are as
sessed for less than 5000 many fol
iess than Sl,690. What has taken place
In my nelghborhood has been dumb.
Gated all over our city, probably to 4
-eSs extent No modern house is con.
sidered NJ fer occupancy. without 4
contains at least four spigots. for which
the water tax will average $40. an
aware that many old houses have n,
sewer connection. and, therefore. d,
not ray FOR water closet srigot bu
there are very few assessed as hish a,
$4,000 that have less than a sink
wash-pave and tathtub.
A. gentleman has just Informed M
that he knows OF houses that are as
sessed at S400 that pay a water tax o
- or 50. Now how are we to reconc;l h
these tacts and figures with the stete
ment Of the Water Department. Wha
right have they to charge water o,ser
douee what It costs them to supp
the water, and then divide the over
charge atnDng,st every taxpayer In an
city thus leaving a water tax on m
cheapsF properties in order 10 rghte
the. dty and school taxes of the NOR
valuable? Il is az plain a case as eve
existed Of laying the rich mans bail
den on the poor mans back.
There would Be no injustice TO an,
one II the tax rate was laid sufficient;
20 pay all the expenses for rurnine r,
pairs and improvements, for then tber
wopad be no sufpGus 10 appropriat,
Neither would the present system ,
pillng up an annual surplus wor
har>aships to amy, providing this su