The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-01-26

Discussion of the controversy over apportioning the taxes between the First and Second districts led to the appointment yesterday, following ad- vice rom the city attorney, of com mittee to revise the acquisitions and apportion the charges against the First and Second districts in accord ance with the instructions laid down by City Attorney John s. Pullman.
 The opinion of the city attorney holds promise of an unexpectedly small rate for the residents of the First district only'' territory. He points out a number of specific in stances where under his interpreta- tfon of the law, the First district tax payers cannot be cal ed upon to share in the expenses of the Second district payers. and also points out what he deems an illegal apporuonment or the joint charges of the two districts.
 The opinion of the city attorney was not wholly what President Cooper ex- pected. He takes the view that the First district residents are getting by for much less than they should pay into the city treasury. But the city attorney says that even the proposed rate of "A mills for the First district Is too high.
 The city attorney points out the gen. eraI law covering the situation, then takcs 1c the report of Auditor Keat- ing and recommends a number of re- adjustments of the apportiorment of taxes, almost invariably to the bene- fit of the taxpayer in the First dis trict only.
 On the strength of the report the city attorney, President Cooper, ana Commissioner Hlncks were appointed to act with City Auditor Heating and City Clerk Boucher in readjusting the apportionment of the expenses.
 MT Cooper dweIt at length upon what be considered the injustice of the present. method of levying the taxes, Following is MT Cooper's ad- dress along this line:
 Taxpayers outside the second dis trict pay approximately 4 per cent. of the f1cst district tax. According to the opinion of the city attorney, an appro- priation of S6,O00 for lights in the frst district would have to be for lights in the first district only, or To- cated outside of the second district lines. The second district taxpayer would be paying 96 per cent of the appropriation. In other words, the people who paid first district taxes only, would pay only $24O for these cannot be called upon to pay cent for any similar items that are inside the second district lines.
 Rank Injustice.
 This may he the law, but consider 1t rank injustice. The items com plained of last year were Hgats, ma cadam repairs, roads and bridges and liquor license receipts. Two years ago we IOund Dy acTual count that there were placed outside the second dis trict lamps costing the city $4,469. An appropriation of $6,00o was listed in the First district. On that basis the drst district taxpayers would have paid | only $240 and received approximately | $4, 46S wortIi of light. By placing the | entire appropriation of $63,152 in the l nrSt district. the taxpayers outside the | second district paid only $2.713, there 1 by getting $1,756 more in lights than i they paid for. The reason for trans roads and bridges was that the direc- | tor of public works estimated more than 15 per cent would be spent out l side the second district.
 License Monies.
 The liquor license receipts were l transferred by the city auditor believ- ing that he was right morally and Ie- | gally, and to bring about a more equi- | table division of the tax But two | or three saloons are outside the second | district, and as the law says that no | saloons shall be located except where | there is police protection, and as the | first district bears no portion of the | police departmen charges, and has no | patrolmen, we thought there was good | ground for the city auditor making | the transfer.
 The city auditors report was pub hshed in January and no move was | made by the first district taxpayers | until the latter part of May-too late | for the board of apportionment to make any change, if such change was necessary
 What have the taxpayers in the First district only paid? 1906, $16,- TAO; 1927, s1S,960; 1908, S33.450: | 1909. sss. 500; l9i6. SS1.c7C: isi1. s2s,7O0 (net).
 What Did Citizens Get?
 What did the citizens outside the second district get during 1911?
 Schools-There were 946 children costing SPA per capita, a total of S23- s94- The Tesiny Avenue school cost repairs. bridges, $6,5OO; street grad ing, $1,SO0; benefit from fire depart mnent Tor nfne months. S1,S5O ap- proXimateIy S2s50O for year, making a total of $63.917 for SIX items only |: In the first district there are between 30 and 70 additional items.
 Seven per rent. of the still alarms of lire and one ard one-half per cent of the bell alarms were outside the sec ond district. On May 4 while the ap- paratus was at a fire in the first dis trict there was a call from the Miller Lumber company. There are IT fire | 1ydrants outside the second district and 20 on the line. A few years ago he Black Rock school was built at n 1911 the care of Fairfield avenue out dde the second district cost $500; Madison avenue, grading and macad- amizing. S2,000; North Main street | from second district line to Trum- pull line, grading and maca damizing, ;ost the city hetween S5O,OO0 and $6O.-
 During 191O-191I oil and ton dress ng on Main street outside the second district cost $1,40O. There have been between s65,eO0 and s75,O0O worth of sewers built outside the second dis | trict. to which the city attorney says they have no legal right and on which 10 assessment can be legally collect ed- They also nave police protection. although no patrolmen; there arc many streets inside the second dis srict which arc not patrolIed reRu-