The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-07-17

One of a batch of councilmanic meas
ures signed yesterday by Recorder W.
l.. Connell Is the tax levy ordinance
The recorder signed this measure under
protest, and explained in note under
his signature that while he was op-
posed to the ordinance as 1t stood. he
would waive his objections. that the
city might not be embarrassed by the
delay consequent of veto.
The tax levy ordinance was carefully
drawn by city officials cognizant of the
city's needs. 1t went through common
council as submitted. but when 1t
reached select council the Democratic
leaders had it amended by reducing
the levy as much as was permitted by
the $3S,000 difference between the esti-
mated and actual receipts from liquor
licenses. Common council concurred in
the amendments. and in this shape 1t
went to the recorder
On the face of the thing the amend
ment was great grand and glorious.
Hon. John p. Quinnan. one of the
Democratic selectmen, who proposed it.,
made a lengthy speech, setting forth
how the councils were ever alive to the
duty of lessening the burden of the
taxpayer, etc, etc, etc 1t was all very
nice but developments prove that it
was very ill-advised.
PURPOSE OF IT.
The purpose of lowering the levy was
not, primarily, to lessen the burden Of
the taxpayer. 1t was to put the Re-
publican city administration in a hole
One of the consprators has confessed
to this.
If Recorder Connell vetoed the
amended ordinance he would cause no
end of confusion in the city's fiscal de-
partment by delaying the collection OF
taxes, and, incidentally, would have put
the city to the expense of borrowing
money. If the ordinance was approved
and made operative, a deficiency would
be created and as a campaign would
be contemporaneous with the discovery
of the deficiency at the end of the fiscal
year, the Democrats would have still
have better campaign thunder than
that which would develop from the de-
lay of putting through second tax
levy ordinance.
The scheme was apparent at first
glance and steps were taken to get at
the bottom of it. One of the parties
who was let in on the scheme gave the
snap away. and the recorder was pre-
pared to act advisedly.
He did not want to veto the ordl-
nance, because of the i'll consequences,
so he attached his signature with a
note of protest. A full explanation of
why he signed the ordinance under pro-
test will make interesting reading.
WILL BE RESPONSIBLE.
Those who effected the reduction of
the levy will be shown to be responsible
for the deficiency AS a result of their
action the city will be unable to re-
place the bridges washed away in last
springs flood and must let go by the
board number of other contemplated
repairs and improvements. In it's orig
inal shape the ordinance would let the
city out even. AS it stands now, there
will be a deficiency of $4,000 or So
without taking into account the repairs
of bridges.
Other measures signed by the recorder
We're as follows: Contracts
with the Eureka and Boston Hose COM
drawing the appeal in the case of ].
p. Helm, in the matter of paving Sew
enth street: resolution abating the
nuisa ce caused by water dripping
from he caves of the Jersey Central
freigh depot; resolution looking to the
repair of the Fourth district main
sewer: resolution settling the claim of
Peter Cummings of Phelps street: reso-
luton calling for plans for opening
Hickory street, between Washington
and Cedar avenues; resolution for the
repair of the South Hyde Park avenue