The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-02-10
WHAT THE FEE SYSTEM COSTS
THE PEOPLE.

abolished and q fixed salary substi-
tuted as compensation for the holder
OF that office. City taxes last year
aggregated s2,21S.67o and the cost OF
collecting that amount was sS,32Ool,
or three-eighths of per cent OF
the latter sum. $4,000 went for the sal
airy OF the City Collector and S4,7o0
was used for the expenses incident
to the office. Under the fee system
fve-eghths of per cent was allowed
the City Collector At that rate the
cost to tho city OF collecting its taxes
for 1912 would have been S13,+2S under
the fee system. From these figures it
is clear. therefore. that Richmond saves
more than $4,000 annually because it's
City Collector is paid a fixed compen-
sation instead OF fees.
The Office of City Collector is n fifth
wheel in SO far as the collection of
taxes is concerned. There is no reason
why the duties OF the Office should not
be added to those of the City Treas
urer. The Norfolk Virginian- Pilot
forms this office ~ useless snecure.
entailing upon the taxpayers an ex-
penditure for which they receive moth
ing that even approaches comparative
benefit" Yet the position cannot be
abolished because of a statute maxi
ing its maintenance mandatory upon
every city in the State of more than
10000 population. declares the Norfolk
newspaper. That statute, which we
have been unable to run down, was
enacted at the instance OF the local
political leaders for the special pur-
pose of rendering null and void the
provisions of Norfolks new charter
whereby the city collcctorsh;p was
done away with and the duties OF the
Office merged with those OF the city
treasurer"
Richmonds course in reducing in
part the unnecessary expenditure en-
tailed by the existence of the office
causes the Virginian-Pilot to say:
There is absolutely no reason why a
similar reform should not be effected
here and with equally satisfactory re-
suits; there is every reason why adj
vantage should be taken of the oppor-
tunity presented by the approaching
expiration of the city collectors pres
cnt term 10 inauguratc such reform
iroller's Office in Norfolk show That
the fees received by inc city collector
of Norfolk for collecting the municipal
taxes last year amounted TO S12.29O7O.
The Office, the NirGinian-pilot lis in
formed, employs two clerks regularly
and Two extra clerks during the busy
season each year. Adopting the Viz
ginian-P Pilots estimate OF the outlay
for clerical hire at $4,000, which Ger
tainly seems TO be Il very liberal
estimate" il is found that the city
collector would draw "A net annual sal
airy OF more than $4,000 And for
WHAT inquiries the Norfolk critic.
For dischargin.g duties which any or
binary clerk. could perform lust as
we'll and just as efficiently"
To establish the ci'icc on a fixed
salary basis--of $1,000, say--wouId
save the Norfolk Taxpayers at least
$4,000 annually, without interfering
with The efficiency OF the public ser
vice and without cntllling an iota Of
Injustice upon any one Moreover. .ir
Richmond can secure for $4,000 a wear
and she does. n competent and efficient
eating more than S2.c0000O. certainly
Norfolk ought TO have no difficulty in
obtaining for $4,000 a Year man 10
less competent ana efficient to collect
taxes totaling less than II million and
half dollars" In Norfolk there arc
hundreds OF suitable men who wo,,la
ne glad to take the city collcctorship
nj such salary Nc special ability
is needed for the office; ca pacity for or
binary clerical duties is ali that lis re-
quircd.
1t is hoped that the City Council of
Norfolk Will initiate tho wise public
economy exercised by Richmond in
shifting the city colieotorship from q
fec to salary basis. an annual saw
ing OF $4,000 yearly is rot TO be scoffcd
at; in short time the economy would
be greater than that. because the
amount Of taxes collected increa ses
from yea. TO year. Moreover. If Nor
folk lhoold effect this economy. its OK
ample. coupled with tina; OF Richmond
would constitute Il powerful practical
system wherever II exists in Viz
E'hia' !! Richmond and Norfolk can
each save 5000 annually By tho IN
stallation of the salary system in :,
single ohlcc, who car estimate how
much more they would save if their
city court clerks ana city scrgcants
and other fee Offices were put on :.
salary basis? Extend the salary prin-
ciple TO all fee Offices in the state. ana
enormous saving Will be effected
Why ahould the people pay city col.
lectors and other fee officers more thar
State Supreme Court Judges. the Coy
crnor and other high State officers re
csive? The fee system violates FL
right and all reason: I, is unbusincss
like and wasteful. Its doom is sealed
------------------=
sELF-sUPPORTING PARKS.
The problem OF providing Rich
"a