The Calhoun chronicle. [volume] (Grantsville, W. Va.) 1883-1984, 1907-02-05
yac,s ibCul the Bridge Question
&p EDlror:


e,E, KDlToR:-
Wish your permission. desire to
say q lew words to the voters OF this
couaty % the proposition cf voting
bonds 30 bridge the river at Gruu,,
Vile. Tbs proposition to be voted ou
ia mo i-snc Of bonds to the amount Of
$4,000. PAYABLE 10 thirty tour yeas.
or. At the opiisu of ,he county court.
sacr ten ycar.. Nov, the law pro
yilcs hat whore bonds are voted 50
such cases, tie county court shall 81
n0aNy lay lew sufficient poy the
iutore>; ~ such bonds, and create a
sins'ng fuud which will pay The Prin
c'pal IA not more than thirty four
y'a~s The county court wou.d,
therefore, in TIE event tais proposition
should carry, hevo 90 raise annually
she amount of the interest on the
bonds $1,000, aud the one dirty
fourth pat Of the principal $5SS "a,
CT fetal of S17SS "a But this
einking fund will itself be- at once put
on interest, a9d cvea though only
per cent interest could DO realized On
il, the interest on the entire fund run
rIng through the entire period Of
thirty four years would average SIP
q year Deduct this from the 81 788
TO DO raised, and the net t
which would have to be raised each
year would be 81, 376,
The taxable proFerto in Calhoun
county for the year 1906 was. in
round numbers, So 100000 a levy
Of four cents on the 300 valuation
would raise 81, $40, or Sill more
than is needed; yet il would perhaps
require this ezra amount to pay 'he
she,lff's commissions. the delinquency,
DC From theee figures. am there
fore Z opinion that levy Of orly four
osnts on the one huldrei dollars VAL
g=iioo will be amply sufficient 70 pay
FOR t6sso bonds, if tho voters Of the
county should decide TO have them
issued And this does not take in,o
Coz sideration the decrease in the prop
ertY ofthe county; and feel oonlident
shat II We had few bridges in the
county. ib" taxable property thereof
would easily be doubled within the
next decade. But desire to be con
servativo in the matter. and I have
made my calculations on the 1906
assessment.
There is also one other matter
about which l wish TO speak 1t Is
this: learn that some persons In the
upper end of Lee district gill vote
gainst the proposition. because it did |
not rio include the issue of bonds for
M dge across the West Fork a. the !
n IA of Mushroom It's conceded |
by oil that that bridge is badly need
cd, And the county court, ora ma
joriiy of it's members, has politically !
declared that il will bridge the West
Fo,k at that point whether the bond
proposition wins or loses That bridge
oau easily be built cut Of the county
levy; End, this being true, where
would be tho necessity or wisdom Ia
issuing bonds for it aud paying inter-
est thereon? | do Dot know what that
bridge will cost, but from tho csti
mates have heard made on II. II will
cost less than So 600 II this is cor
reo', a levy Of 1919. oo t6e 800 will /
buildi But toe river eau never be
bridged without a boLd issue, because
Of the fact that lcvying bodice ere tot |
permitted under the law to create q
surplus, or to ruo 10 debt, and there
fore the whole amount Of the cost Of /
,ho bridge would have TO be raised 10
one yoar, and this would exceed The
rate Of levy which county courts arc
autb olizsd 10 Jay.
Worry respectfully.
<. j. BELL.