The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1902-08-01
BROCK ON HOUCH
Fallacies Of the Comptroller in De-
Tending the Bad Budget Ex-
posed and Refuted.

4 Corporation Counsel and an adviser
| in the proceedings that led to the
| adoption of the budget. BY refer
ring to page IS of the minutes of the
Board of Finance of 1900-1901. the
statment will be substantiated."
| Mr.. Hough's proposition simply
amounts to this said Mr.. Brock. that
since one Board of Finance some years
! ago committed an irregular action. this
| Board finds itself justified in doing the
same thing. As = matter of fact, the
amounts to a proposal to pay an old
debt which virtually has no assets to
protect it, out of new, live collections
| applicable upon newer and later obliga-
tions of the city.
''Let me explain more fully. In 1880,
the city owed 81, ,463, 900 on assessment
bonds. Under a special act of the Legis-
lature. these were refunded into bonds
payable in 1916 with a provision that
$35, 900 should be paid into a sinking
fund toward their reduction every year.
With the exception of the single year to
which Mr. Hough refers. this 5000
has always been provided by taxation.
There is not the slightest chance Of
$35 ZOO being collected next year from
assessments now fifteen or more years
old. Anybody can see that. doubt if
there is $35. 900 collectable money still
outstanding in this account. OF course
$50. 600 of assessment money can be used
for this purpose, but it will be money
accruing since 1890. Therefore using it
on the old debt will simply be creating
new one 1t is robbing Peter to pay
Paul. It is direct fraud upon the city
and its creditors. H is using money
pledged to one purpose TO make good an
other obligation. may say that it is
even more reckless to do this in 1903
! than it was in 1900. for every, year the
impossibility of collecting money on these
old assessments becomes greater"
THE FRANCHISE FAKE.
Mr. Brock then took up Charge No. 2,
which appeared in the journal as fol
lows
Charge No. 2-To cover up ex-
travagance; $4,000 is deducted as
colectable from franchises which
no member of the Board believes
will yield that amount.
Comptroller Hough's reply-"The
$4,000 will not only be fully made
up by receipts from franchises, but
the amount may be exceeded. Thus
far this year we have received $26,-
600 in franchise taxes, and the Hud-
son County Gas Company has not
yet paid the 14,20S.9G, which will
be paid before long"
"This,'' said Mr.. Brock, SIS a case of
sheer bluff. The city collected ON account
of franchises this year about $4,000
against an estimate of $4,000. The ac
tual collections next year will be just
about the same amount, $4,000. The
estimate made in this. years budget of
$4,000 contains $4,000 of mind water
| or bluff or anything you may choose 10
call it-imposture at any rate. The $14-
600 which Mr.. Hough says is to come
from the Gas Company will never be
collected 1t was knocked out by the de
eisions of the Supreme Court and the
! Court of Errors and Appeals in the
Newark trolley cases. The amount was
assessed against the Gas Company un-
der the same act in which Newark as
sumed to tax the property of
the trolley companies in the streets.
The courts decided these assessments il
| legal and of course the Jersey City ones
fall with the Newark ones.
in addition to this $4,000. the bud
get includes $4,000 on account of 'un-
collectable franchise assessments for
this year. This is the same Gas Com
pany assessment for 1901-02, and il is,
of course. equally impossible of collection
with the assessments for 1902-'03. Here
l
tofore in spite of what Mr.. Hough says
we have in these two items an aggre-
gate estimated review of $4,000 which
is absolutely imaginary, and not one dol
! lar of which is coming to the city"
A DOUBTFUL POINT.
The reporter next asked Mr.. Brock
about the third charge as printed in fhe
Journal in which Mr.. Hough asserts
that s24. 4.943.17 of temporary loan bonds
which Mr. Brock charged were not pro-
vidsd for in the budget, had already been
paid.