Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-02-15
RECKLEsSNEsS OF ADVOCATES
OF THE REFUND.


truth commend us to the two pa
pers supporting the refunding scheme.
The evening organ outvies It's
Fourteenth street morning con-
temporary in the effort to mud
die the question and deceive the vot-
ers, and then the morning organ goes
Its evening contemporary n better
on the same line.
Yesterday the Register kindly advis-
ed the I~ntelligencer to read the ordi-
nance before it undertook to instruct
the voters as to its provisions. We
regret that our neighbor has still neg
lected this important matter. 1t
quotes the following from the Regis
ter:
Contrast the two propositions-the one,
the plan we are now pursuing, which will
see the city practically free from debt in
ten years and in a still shorter time able
to reduce taxation, and the other, the re-
funding scheme, which will not permit the
city to even reduce it's present debt for
ten years, nor to finally cancel it for thirty
years, though paying an enormous sum
in interest the while, and a total sum about
twice as great as will be necessary if the
present common sense plan is adhered to-"
On this our neighbor makes the fol-
lowing eminently foolish comment,
which it would not have done if it
had taken the Registers advice and
carefully examined the ordinance:
These statements are not only mislead-
ing, but unqualifiedly false. TIL ordinance
specifically provides for the setting, aside
every year the sum of SIS, 600, which is a
yearly reduction of the debt. At the end
of ten years there will be accumulated
the sum of $4,000 to apply ply, towards the the
the ~refunding of that portion of 1t that can
be refunded, will result in a sensible de-
crease of interest charges"
Here our neighbor endeavors to con-
vey the impression that the sinking
fund arrangement sis a yearly reduc-
ton of the debt" which will result
in a sensible decrease Of interest
charges" or in other words that there
is very little difference between the
proposed scheme and the present wise
and businesslike plan of paying off a
portion of the principal Of the debt
each year and reducing the annual in
terest charge. Our neighbor exhibits
astounding ignorance Of the proposed
plan, or something very much more
r~eprehensible than mere ignorance.
Suffice it to say that this sinking fund
payment of $15, 900 a year will simply
have the effect of tying up just that
much of the peoples money every year
without lessening the debt one single
penny for ten years. Nor would the
interest charge be yearly reduced, as
now-which is the impression the or
gan attempts to create. Neither prin-
cipal nor interest under the terms Of
this refunding ordinance would be re-
duced an iota. On the contrary the
people would have to pay $40, 900 a year
interest for every mi of the ten years,
or $780, 600, while at the end of that
period the original debt would stare
us in the face as large as ever. And
meanwhile this sinking fund would be
tied up in some bank which would
give but three per cent. at the outside
while the city must pay four per cent.
Would that be business? No business
NAL will say so. AT best at the end of
the ten years we would not be able to
reduce the principal of the debt with
in $4,000 of the sum we would have
paid on it in interest alone in thai
time. And moreover, as soon as the
city entered the market to purchase
back its bonds in that amount the
price would instantly be run up. But
even if it could buy them at par it
could cancel but about a fourth of the
debt, while the whole thirty-four
years must elapse before it could all
be cancelled. Contrast this with the
present common sense plan, which will
see the city practically free from debt
aud with but a nominal interest
charge In ten years and wholly free in
fifteen or sixteen years. What busi-
ness man can for a moment hesitate
between these two simple propositions
SO widely different?
The plea that the city needs the few