New-York tribune., 1901-04-07
MORE THAN $500. 100000 SURPLUS
THE SINKING FUND, ACCORDING TO Mr.
LEVEY-COMAIENT on CHARTER

THE SINKING FUND. ACCORDING TO Mr.
LEvEY-CoMMENT on CHARTER.
Deputy Controller Edgar J Levey says that the
taxpayers are annually paying s. 10000 into the
sinking fund for The redemption Of city bonds
without there being any use Of it. He asserts.
further. that by 1928 there will be a surplus OF
more than $500 mo 000 in the sinking fund unless
the law IS changed that governs the payments into
the fund
ing fund for the redemption OF the city debt will
possess assets Of than 5000 900 in excess OF
The entire debt redeemable therefrom. II New
York's financial system were made conform to
approved modern methods Of municipal finance. and
the enormous revenues Of the redemption fund
more than $1,000 0o0 year. used as 4 factor
IN determining the amount 10 be raised annually
by taxation, the administration OF the sources Of
those revenues would undoubtedly benefit by the
closer public scrutiny which would result
Mr- Leyey, who was a member OF the Charter
Revision Commission. when asked yesterday re-
garding the revised charter, passed by the egis
larure. said that he did not know much about II as
ret; he intended however, to look the copy
which the Mayor has. Mr.. Levey added that the
parts over which the subcommittee Of which he
was q member had control were not materially
Affected. He continued:
The legislation on the Dock Board matters. IN
am not on the wtoI onn6la5 ~ - - ne AGpsn1
cspatch is correct Il will make peculiar state Of
fSs7 e M ~ 6 +b F5 al Feeeits are 70 & pe
make the head Of the Dock Board a mere clerk to
the Board OF Estimate. with power. Again the
sinking fund has had supreme power over the
Dock Board since 1s7l. and by this provision II
rect there would De a constant conflict between
p9wer Il would be sure 10 cause strife
The increased power OF the borough presidents
IS serious matter. II is an experiment, and
hope viii be : good one Il practically makes the
borough presidents Commissioners of Public Works
and z little more. Il insures 10 the boroughs home
rule where their interests are regarding personal
assessments.
Mr Levey was asked II IT were correct that the
president Of the Borough Of Manhattan would have
the P5tronage OF sl5,o6oc0 and the president Of
Brooklyn Of s. geo 600 That might be true, he
which they would receive would be beneficial
Mr.. PARSONS On ALDERMEN'S DUTIES.
Herbert Parsons alderman from the XXVth Dis
Tict. IN 2 letter 10 The Tribune commenting the
EDITORIAL entitled The Price Of Aldermen in the
ssue Of april g. says among other things:
4 may be that the Board Of Aldermen IS some
ning which We ought not 70 have but the revisers
II the charter and the legislature are both Of the
opinion that should have it.
50 lar as the minority aldermen were able to
lie.re5 thG5ght mar The work which under the
ag and by custom alderman was called upon 10
70 entitled him salary OF from $1,000 TO s23Oo,
hat such a salary would tend to secure better men
members Of Tie board and would, after they be-
;aTne members, constrain them TO more diigent
nd honorable Performance Of their duties This
ne Increased jurisdiction given 70 the local ana
3oroIgh boards BY the revision the time ~ whlch
Iou.e aldermen viii be compelled TO give 10 their
3ut.es viii be about all the time that they VIII
! do not claim that any particular virtue will
one from the figure of 81 90 but do claim that
he consensus Of opinion Of all those who have ha
experience IS to the effect that 10 pay 5000 VIII be
1etter for the city than 10 pay $lo"-
NJ Parsons SAYS that the aldermen have justi-
ied their claim 70 usefulness and efficiency in their
ttttcde toward bond issues. He declares that the
Fysten requiring bond issues TO have a three
'ourths vote Of the council and aldermen is sound
'ne, and continues as follows:
The only criticism is that the city has under it
ssen TOO economical There Is a striking contrast
between this and the budget. The budget has
lever mad TO pass the council and the Board OF
Aldermen by a tnree-fouTths vote OF the members
elected each In December 1886, the charter sad
hst the budget Of the greater city would be almost
100000 In 1900, four years after, the oudget
vas SIS 10000 The minority members voted
Lgsnst il unanimously. and the papers All sald tnat
.he budget was 0utrageously large Inc minority
members have been able TO prevent outrageous
BOND issues because a three-fourths vote allowed
hem have a voice. Tney could nave no erect
,n the budget because the requirement OF ma
ortty vote allowed them 20 be OF no account