Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1912-11-02

@NAoAA y Yt0stt1 AAAA W.
this yea $3.50. In this statement h
is laying the ground for two ques
tons to which I will refer later OF
OF course, Is one acquainted wit
, city affairs, he is aware that tn
Mayor and Common Council canno
control, absolutely. the tax rate. II
knows that we must give the count,
what it fixes upon; that there ar
certain mandatory appropriations be
sides that; that the Legislature cal
juggle school moneys and that tn
Board OF. Works has w been un
der Democratic control since l be
came Mayor. Yet on this property
to which Mr.. Muroe refers, the take
this year are but $3.50 more thai
they were in 1906, the last year {
Republican was in office. and they
average an increase of only abou
$3.50 during the period in which
have been Mayor. This would seen
to be quite reasonable. He also say
that the result in the Prudential
tax case was clearly foreshadowet
months ago. If it were so clearly
foreshadowed the Prudential mus
have wasted a lot Of money in en-
gaging special counsel in the case
Inquiries Of Mr.. Monroe.
Now the first of the inquiries fol
which Mr.. Munroe has thus laid the
foundation is the following:
"First-Why the Gettfried Kruger
old Folks Home on Clinton place
consisting of about five acres, where
hundreds and, 1 am informed, often
thousands of people gather in sum-
mer; where ten cents admission Is
charged to the grounds; where beer
and other liquor are dispensed from
two, and sometimes three, bars;
where bowling alleys and shooting
galleries are run for hire-why is this
place free from all tax assessment as
a charitable institution"
This is a characteristic bit of in
accuracy. No property of the Krue-
ger Greisenheim was assessed until
l came into office. It is now, and has
been for several years. paying taxes
on a valuation of about $4,000. The
main building and the five acres adj
joining are exempted from tax on
the ground that it is a charitable i'll
stitution, for, though entertainments
are given at the institution and re-
freshments served there for which
money is received, the profits from
such enterprises have always gone 10
the support of the home, which, 1 am
assured, nevertheless, annually shows
a deficit which has to be met byst the
charitable persons constituting its
board of managers. 1t is a rather
close legal question whether or not
an assessment should be made in
view of the fact, about which no con
cealment was ever attempted, but as
the institution is undoubtedly a char
ity and no individual makes any
money on it, it has been thought well
to incline to the charitable side. In
this connection it would be interest
ing to, know whether Mr.. Munroe
knows, or has reason to believe, that
a tax board appointed by my oppo-
nent, If he should be elected, would
assess the Kruger G~reisenheim.
License Fee Questioned.
1.-THE second question for which Mr..
Munroe has laid the foundation is
the following:
"Second-In whose interests was
the license fee reduced from $500 to
$500 on nearly j, 400 saloons In New
ark at the. first or second meeting of
your first Excise Board? This re-
duced the city's income about $40, 900.
What was there to offset this? What
did the city and the taxpayer gain
h,y $40 VIII did uain9 VUoO ~ nropa-
ised to them before your election?
''This is also inaccurate In it's de-
auctions. The Excise Board appoint
ed by the court, which vas afterward
declared to have been unconstitution-
ally appointed, doubled the excise fee
at one time and without notice, SO
that men who had conducted a bust
ness IN a basis of a yearly fee of $3.50
found themselves compelled to pay
just twice that amount or get put OF
business. AS a matter of fact, "a good
many of them were forced out of
business, although less than one
quarter of the licenses held in the
city had come up for renewal during
the period dating from the time the
court-appointed board took control to
the time the board appointed by me
assumed charge.
I'm considering the situation, I come
to the conclusion that the high fee
force out SO many licensees,
the city would scarcely gain at
all in license revenue and would lose |
N a great many ways by reason of
stores, suspended business and
the like. 1 was also moved by another
consideration, which I do not expect
10 appeal to Mr.. Munroe, but which
[ am not ashamed to vow / felt
that it would be very unjust to force
INTO virtual bankruptcy a very large
number of persons, whose net in
comes, I had reason to know, were
small, and whose chief offence seemed
to be that they were saloonkeepers.
It seemed to me that it would be
.yrannical and unjust for the city to
10 this even if it should gain some
Increase in revenues from licenses.
with regard to the last question
{ will say to Mr.. Munroe that I made
no promises about this before cleo
ton, and, indeed, made no promises
Of any kind except those made pub
.icly during my campaign.
I'm conclusion l may be permitted
to observe that this is quite an old
and, SO far as I have yet
seen. it has not been an issue in the
present campaign. I have not, at
any rate, noticed that my opponent
has made any comments upon it,"
|