The comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1884-1916, 1909-09-09
F ALLACY OF THIRTEEN
FACTS CLEARLY SHOWN
YOU CAN NOT FOOL ALL THE PEOPLE BY
FALSE ARGUMENT
JOHNSON CITY VOTERS ARE COMPETENT TO DECIDE
What is Best for Them and Can Separate the
Grain from the Chaff of a Lawyers Brief
UnluCky 3 Facts COntradCted

On page 3 of the last issue of the
Staff, DIR. Carr gives list Of citizens
whose tax rate he claims has been re-
ported to him as being less for munici-
dial purposes than the present tax rate
paid by the citizens Of Johnson City
A tax rate is ordinarily an incorrect
indev as to the weight of the burden OF
taxation. The rate is based upon levy
made to meet municipal purposes, and
it is the levy which in fact determines
the burden of the amount collected.
Without being able to see and know
the assessment of property for taxation
in the places referred to is made with
reference to property values, the argu-
ment which he offers proves nothing.
Attention is called to the fact that IN
the list of cities submitted by him as
having lower tax rate, and as he con-
tends a lighter burden than johnson
City; are found the cities of Lynch
burg, Roanoke, Knoxville, Norris
town, Bristol, Va, Bristol, Tenn, and
Chattanooga, all of which own and OPP
crate their own systems of waterworks.
1t may be, for all that appears in the
Doctors article, that the reason why
the rate is lower in these cities, is that
they own their own waterNorks sys-
tenn.
The thirteen reasons given ON page
of the Staff are, in the main, bold as
sertions without any support in TACT.
Fact No. is not correct for the reason
that tfie length of time which 1t Will
be necessary to occupy i'll construction
from the time the bonds are hoated up
to the time construction is completed
will be so short that the payment OF
interest, if properly managed, will be
only nominal, and the interest eXpend-
iture will doubtless be met with the
first years receipts.
Fact No. 2 is not correct because the
amount of taxes paid in Johnson City
when the tax levy is considered is not
oppressive or unreasonable. Further
more, the debt incurred by the con-
struction of waterworks system, will
be, according to the provicions OF the
act, a mortgage debt on the water
works, accompanied by the cities guar
antee, and the experience of Fayette-
Vile, Nashville, Morristown, Bristol
and other cities, as well as the very ma
ture of the case, leads us to believe that
the income from gravity system Will
be so great that it will relieve existing
burdens rather than impose additional
burdens. If not, why not? Does a
water company or an individual wanl
to jump under and carry burden fo1
Joe nson City when it does not make
any money for the bearer? The prop
osition is self evident.
Fact No. 3 is not correct. We can
not agree that the Water Company
has agreed to do everything the city
wants. 1t has not put in binding form
with its proposed 100000 guarantee
behind any intelligent or sensible prop
osition to extend the old or build a new
system. The city has languished fol
twenty years nnder promises to con-
struct reservoirs and for water supplies
for manufacturing and domestic pur'
poses which have not been kept, anC
because they have not been kept the
city is today in want and under the
shadow of impending disaster. Are
the people fools enough to rest content
on promises printed in the advertising
columns of newspaper, when they
know that the obligations of solemn
contracts have gone mperformed anC
when they are now suffering in every
part of the city in business and il
health because they have not been fully
and faithfully kept?
Don't forget that the 100000 bono
never existed, and that you only have
the word of the Company to put vi
this bond, which amounts to nothing
more than the word of the company t
furnish the supply in the first place
The talk about seven or ten million
gallons of water suppose is based OF
the statement that it will go to Indian
4 Greek Blue Spring for water. But this
is rather presumptious, as the city ha
| its own option on this source of supply
The city is under no obligation to Civ,
up the supply it holds and let the wa
ter company furnish it to the people
rather than furnish it itself. Is no
the water company asking too mucl
in regard to this matter?
The statement contained in "Fac
No. AZ is incorrect for the reason tina
bonds heretofore issued were for publ
Improvements, such as school build
ings, matchmaking streets, ETC., whicl
were not intended or expected to brinI
back direct revenue to the city
whereas the bonds in question, accord
ing to the best opinion which prevail
l." L.. q ~ for Aa,