Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1911-05-03
TAX RATE UNSETTLED.
Council Refuses to Concur In Alder
mems Action and Sticks by Discount
Formerly Adopted.

10 concur 10 the action Of the Board q
Aldermen which passed the tax lay
a week ago has brought about condI
tlons which are causing anxiety Ih
reproduction Of the unfortunate dead
| lock OF few weeks ago is 10 be re
| gretled, az there Is no telling what ma.
be the outcome. The serious phase /
the fact that the most important busl
ness Oh the eve Of the advent Of tn
fiscal Year is yet to be transacted an,
the first day Of June seems llkel.
TO find the city treasury prac
tically empty and with the wheel
Of the city government clngged
as should present conditions continue !
will be impossible TO prepare bills ant
collect taxes during the year 1911. Th'
clerk OF the city is standing with folded
arms as is also the collector of take
awaiting results.
The history Of this unfortunate
chapter in the history Of Alexandria Is
fresh in the minds OF all. The finance
committee had from time immemorial,
after weeks of deliheratlon and study,
submitted the tax bill to the City Coun.
Gil and within the recollection OF the
oldest nhabitant no member Of either
body has made any serious attempt t.
alter their figures, as 1t has always beei.
conceded that the committee mad made
that important feature OF the city :
legislation a close study and had acted
pro bono publico. This, however. was
not the case this year.
The ordinance was introduced in the
Board Of Aldermen December Is,
1910, and referred 10 the finance com.
mittee. AT the request Of Alderman
Field, who was out Of the city at the time,
Mr.. Burke submitted the ordinance in
the lower board February IA, 1911
The bill provided for levy Of 81 - OF
the 500 with the discounts Of last yeal
six and four per cent-for promp
payment The bill was recommitted ano
when it made its ieappearancet February
2S) in the Common Council fiat rate
of Sl.75 was imposed BY that board
Three days later the ordinance was con.
sidered by the Board of Aldermen anu
that board refused to concur, and asked
for conference committee. A special
meeting was held March I. but nothing
was accomplished. Or March l4th(reg.
uIar meeting) the Aldermen revoked
their action asking for conference com
mi,tee, reconsidcrcd the ordinance and u
was passed as amended so with five
and three per cent. discount. The Com
mon Council non-concurred aud asked
for a committee OF conference. This
precipitatel a wraDgle IN the lowe
board as to the manner OF selecting
the conference committee, the Presl
dent maintaining that it was his prero
gatve to appoint members OF the
same. He, however, was overruled
and the lower board selected their own
committee, which met a committee
from the Aldermen and finally agreed
upon = 50 rs the rate but determined
10 make the discount four aud two
per cent. This report was adopted by
both boards, and the people breather
easier. Unfortunately, however, tn,
ordinance was rushed through both
branches the same night which IS con
trarv 10 the state law aud the Mayor
could not sign it under the circum-
stances. This incident preciptateG
war Of words as to whether the
Mayor's communication was veto OF
a mere notification that the board had
been too precipltate. After tins per
picking issue had been downed tn,
ordinance was formally repealed an"
A new bill submitted and referred to
the finance committee. During their
of the instrument the
committee in their wisdom placed the
rate of taxation at 81 50 on the SlOu
and fixed the rate Of discount at SLY
Der cent. upon all bills paid by July
lSt and two per cent. upon such a.
may be settled BY September lst. The
committee in submitting the bill stated
that they had anticipated all the de-
mands which could be made upon the
city, and we're sure enough revenue
would be raised. while taxpayers would
have an incentive to settle promptly
bv the offering of liberal discounts.
It was hoped that the issue had burned
out, but the proceedings Of the Com
mon Council last night SHOW that the
storm centre is still in evidence in that
board. The contention IS no~ solely
over the rate OF discount.
From statements oI members OF the
Board of Aldermen today i, Is almost
certain that that board will adhere to
its action OF last week and not concur
in that Of the Common Council. 1t
is said to be equally certain that the
lower board have no intention OF weak
ening or in any manner deferring to
the upper board Should neither re-
cede no taxes will be collected during
the present year. This state of things
is Justly regarded with alarm by all
persons having the city's interest AT
heat. The notion that the provisions
ef last years bill can be enforced this
year is erroneous.
When the tax bill was taken up
at last nights meeting Of the Council
and the reading was finished Mr.
Graham offered a substitute for the
paragraph referring TO the discount
This provided that the rate shall be
81. so on the 500, with a discount Of
1 per cent if paid by July l, when due,
and a discount Of ? per cent if paid by
September l next This led to an in
quiry into the exact status OF the meas
ute and before this was fully determined
Mr.. Burke took the floor and said that