The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-01-26
CITY ATTORNEYS OPINION NOT WHAT PRESIDENT A. N. COOPER OF TAX BOARD EXPECTED---C COOPER QUOTES FIGURES---C -CHAMBERLAIN'S STATEMENT COMMITTEE ID READJUST APPORTONMENT OF TAXES

and has been made necessary by tho l erection of the Boston avenue bridge | it should be charged solely to the sec l ond district. If, on the other hand ] proper place.
 Item: North avenue bridge, ss,-
 As I understand it. that bridge is in | me second district, connecting it wi.n the town of Fairfield. If so, it should be charged against the second dis trict.
 Second District
 Item: Common road repairs, $2.- | If these common roads are in the second district, this item is in the proper place. If any of this money I= roads in the first district. then so much | of it should be charged against the first district
 Item: Macadam, new, $15,OOO.00. This item is correct If all of this money is to be expended in the second district; otherwise, so much -of it as | is to be expended in the first district should be charged against the first dis trfct.
 Item: Sidewalks, etc, $5,OO0.OO. Item, Sidewalks, etc, new, s6,0O0.0O. If any of this money Is to be used for sidewalks outside of the second district, then such amount should be | charged against the first district as IS to be SO used.
 Item: Street cleaning, $5O,oOO.OO.
 Same remarks apply here as to the last items.
 The items relative to bonds, I have no definite knowledge about, and pre- sume that they appear in their proper ilaces in the auditors report.
 All the other items charged by the auditor against the first district think are properly so charged, and the re- ceipts as credited by him are properly credited, and the same applies to what iS cha rpad hx him a ha district, and credited to the second district.
 City Auditor Is Correct.
 So far as the receipts from liquor licenses are concerned, my opinion is that as the statute directs the county 10 the town, they should rightfuIIy be credited to the first district, as they are credited in the auditors report.
 A number of cities have in their charters provisions whereby part or all Of the sum received for liquor licenses is applied to certain specific purposes, pr credited to what corresponds to the second district in Bridgeport Inas- much as only three or four licensed places are outside of the second dis trict, and over three hundred within 1t, it would seem that some more equit- dole disposition of license receipts should be made. This will have to be done, however, by legislative action.
 No appropriation is asked for sewers for the coming year. Towns, as such. have no specific authority to construct sewers. They have certain limited rights as to drainage of highways, etc. If sewers are constructed outside of Fhe second district, I advise that the cost of such construction cannot be charged against the first district, as The charter now stands.
 Respectfully submitted.
 JOHN $. PULLMAN,
 City Attorney.
 Something a'ong the same line as the opinion of the city attorney is the following statement from Attorney John C. Chamberlain, who represen. ed the First district only taxpayers last year in their successful effort for a tax rebate While he did not appear at the meeting of the board, nor did | ne send a communication, he issued | the following as his views of the sit | uation:
 Practically all of the papers in the city are 1ntimating that the first dis ! ttrlct Is receiving from our authori- | ties an expenditure of money for | which it is not paying.
 when my attention was first called | to such statements I deemed them too | absurd to demand any action, but | they have been repeated so often of | late that l fear some people may be- lieve them. As a matter or fact, the | converse of this proposition is the | most emphatic truth. It is all a mat ter or record and can easily be grasped | by any person of ordinary understand ! d n. In the first place, the total of the acquisitions for the two districts would naturally set one to wondering if it was true that the first district was a recipient of charity.
 For the drst district it is sss1,- I6-45 and for the second district SS56, ,006.28
 One can hardly help thinking that 1t Is strange that the district which pays the most is getting something which 1t does not pay for from the one that pays the least
 The history of this situation and the manner n which the second dis trict has gained by the consolidation Ii1 can best be understood by a glance at I Lne nndhclal record of the town and city the year before this act was
 The year book for 1888 has the fol- lowlng+ hgures; For the town Cthe the city (the present second distrfct). S4zO, ,455.26, d ratio of about two ann | one-half times as much for the city as for the town. Consolidation prorn- Ised to protect the rights of the town ana the new government was to be ] less expensive to it than the old If was expressly stipulated that it should pear no additional burdens except l those of the board of health of the city and the expenses of prosecuting the criminals who were caught out side of the city limits
 For many years the letter and the splrlt or the consolidation act was ob- served in everything, except the mat ter of garbage collection. That had been paid Tor by the city up to that time, but after that some bright mind intent upon lessening the second dis trict tax, convinced himself that the expenses of the board of health" meant garbage collection" and ever since that time the whole expense of collecting the garbage of the second district has been paid by the first dis -rtct. This year 1t is estimated at the pretty sum If S44 4AQ loads day comes from outside of the second district Taking up the entire