Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-02-21

Views of other Citizens.
The efforts Of the literary bureau Of
| the refunding scheme to create the i'm
preston that there is virtually no OPP
/ position to the measure is almost too
palpably silly to be considered. The
writer's know, as do the interested re-
funding boomers" that the situation
viewed from their standpoint is des-
perate, hence their remarkable efforts
to secure it's ratification through pur-
posely misleading arguments and by
vain attempts to belittle the opposi-
ton.
A gentleman who has given the or
dinance careful study is ex-City Solic-
itor T. S. Riley, who is familiar with
the city's financial affairs by virtue of
having held the office of legal advisor
of the municipality; and who is also
thoroughly conversant with the facts
relative to previous efforts to place
Wheeling in the business OF CONNER
cial lighting and heating by electric
ity. His views should be read care
fully by every taxpayer.
Ex-Solicitor T. S. Riley said:
Il have examined the loan ordi-
nance about to be submitted to the
people with some care and think that
it should not be ratified for several
reasons. I think that no loan ordi-
nance should be ratified that takes
away from the city the option to re-
deem the bonds after ten years and
which, by it's provisions, fixes a per-
manent Indebtedness upon the city for
a period of thirty-four years as this
| ordinance does. Under the provisions
of this Measure it matters not how
much money the city may have, or
how willing it may be to pay its in
~debtedness, only fifteen thousands dol
lars and interest per year can be paid
as provided in the ordinance.
ct also provides for a sinking fund;
that is, that the city pay fifteen thou
sand dollars each year, and that this
! sum be accumulated from year to year
for ten years, at which time it will be
applied to the principal, in the mean
time the city paying interest to the
holders of the bonds on the amount
thus accumulated.
"In the first place, sinking funds are
Objectionable because money is ac-
cumulated and held as in this case, for
a period of ten years without any
profit to the city; and, secondly, for
the reason that it is always dangerous
to accumulate such funds. But, aside
from this, if we are to judge the flu
ture by the past, this sinking fund
clause will be ignored, and no fund
created to meet the first payment at
the end of the ten years; and more
than likely we will be met with the
problem of one hundred and fifty
thousand dollars of the bonds due
without any money to pay them. My
understanding is that with one or two
exceptions, although the ordinance
provided for a sinking fund, no such
fund has heretofore been created.
Il believe it is claimed that eighty
two thousand dollars of the bonds are
due, and for that reason it is necessary
to refund. l have no doubt that the
holders of these bonds would be will
ing to carry them as long as the city
desired them to be carried at the same,
if not a less rate, than the proposed
Vel o1o II IlCJ olO AOL WILLIE l.
know of others who are willing.
Great stress is placed upon the
electric light feature of the proposed
loan. l have always been, and still
am, in favor Of the city manufacture
ing and selling it's own light, but l am
not in favor of putting the city at the
mercy of the electric light people in
order to accomplish it. Heretofore
when the electric light question was
being fought at Charleston, the COM
pany then claiming the franchise to
manufacture and sell electric light
could afford to spend large sums of
money in having paid lobbyists at the
capitol to defeat n measure offered
by the city to give it power to manu-
failure and sell electric light. Now it
is generally understood that the cleo
trio light people favor, rather than OPP
pose this loan ordinance, and that is
also true as to the people who recent
ly secured from the City Council a
valuable franchise to manufacture and
sell electric light. Does it mean that
this is only another step towards re-
curing the city to purchase, at an I'M
reasonable price, the old electric light
plant, and still let remain the new
franchise to be a competitor of the
city, or does 1t mean hat the two to-
gether are to be dumped, as it were.
upon the city for a large sum of mon
ey? or in other words, that the city
grant to those parties a valuable fran
chise without compensation, and in a
few months the same parties, or their
assignees sell the same franchise to
the city at their own price?
Has not the City Council begun at
the wrong end of this electric light
matter? Should they not first pro-
pose to the electric light company to
purchase it's plant, as provided in the