The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1913-07-29
What Has Been Done3


q long communication on the subject of (
small Board of Freeholders. While tbs
real signature of the writer was withheld
as is frequently and legitimately the case
there were certain earmarks about the
paper which gave some people right tc
guess on the identity of the taxpayer,
and to possibly come right close to dis.
covering who he was. The Mirror Is tax.
ing very active interest against the con-
tinuance of the present system of con-
Quoting the countY's affairs. and that is q
privilege 1t is entitled to, but all personal
animus against any one individual member
should not be allowed to enter into the
contest. There is no indication that the
communication was manufactured"
THE News proposes to take up few of
the queries made by taxpayer" not in
the shape of communication, but in a
form that will hold the editor of this paper
responsible for all that may be said. Tax
payer" asks docs the new Board look
after the interests of the taxpayers In a
more busIness-like manner than the old
Board ~ That question is not SO hard to
answer. Any one who has attended the
meetings of the old Board and seen how
matters of importance have been rushed
through by one or two members while the
others have sat around smoking and chat
ting, may easily see the answer. FIRE.
quently the director has been compelled
to ask for vote on a question where but
one or two have raised their voices. That
is only one instance.
Another question taxpayer" asks Is:
Glow many times have they decided to
do something and then found the law
would make them offenders if they fol-
lowed that course ?" If this is correct,
the small Board is to be commended. If
the members of the old Board had looked
into matters as closely-as that we would
never have been presented with the spec
tacle of some of them being disgraced by
Indictment and punishment by the court.
So that 1t must be conceded that the new
Board has gone carefully In at least one
instance.
Much stress has been laid upon the fact
that the new Board has suggested that the
valuation in this county must be increased
at least Is per cent. Great pains have been
used to make 1t appear that there must be
horizontal raise In this direction. This
Is far from the fact. The suggestion was
tho tho oonnfu Roord IF Taxat{or abo,,ld
consider the subject of looking more
closely into valuations and increase on
basis of Is per cent. This is all right. 1t
Is not new subject. Turner Birkhead,
who was chairman of the finance commit
tee of the old Board. told at least one
member of the Board of Taxation, within
the past year, that there would haYe to
be very material increase in the valua-
tions In this county'if the business was to
be conducted in proper manner. But
before Mr.. Birkhead could officially put
this matter up to the Board of Taxation
the old Board of Freeholders retired and
the duty was placed on the shoulders of
the small Board, and now political capital
is being made out of the act Taxpayer"
Is right when he says 1t is the duty of the
County Board of Taxation to see that all
property is assessed at its true value, and
that body has made all possible effort to
do-that very thing. Much has been &C.
complished and more is still to be done.
Is the property of Taxpayer" assessed at
its true Yalue2 Or has he ever been an
assessor, and If so, has he always been
able to determine just what the true value
OF property is
Then Taxpayer" comments on the con-
dition of bridge at Wading River on
which he claims $500 was unnecessarily
spent. There are others who disagree
with him, but for the sake of argument
allowing his statement to be correct, it
may properly be asked if that is the only
time money has been unnecessarily spent
in that neighborhood We readily agree
that, taking former expenditures into con-
sideration, 1t ought not to have been neces-
sary to put so much money on bridge in
either Bass River or Washington town
ships. Look at the figures. There was
spent on bridges as follows: Bass River,
in 1911, $1,379.S7; In 1912, 1851. 90
81, 926 in two years. In Washington town
ship. 1911, $1,761.91; 1912, $2.S96 81
s., 0S8 In two years. The figures of for
mer years were not looked up, but it is
doubtful if the showing would be any
better Every one will agree that an
average of $4,000 per year spent on
bridges ought to have made it unnecessary
for any large amount to be spent on them
now.
Then the subject of roads is brought
up, and the new Board is being criticised
for the condition the roads are In and
complaints are made that the roads are
going to destruction and are not being
properly looked after. Well, who built
the roads and who had charge of them
until the present Year, Has anybody
taken the trouble to hunt up the amount
that was expended on the roads of this
county, Take the figures of 1911 and
1912 for examples and we will find that in
the two years mentioned there was ex-
pended on the roads of Burlington county
the sum of $13s, O37 SO. Look at the roads
today, justly criticised and can you figure
out where the money went to. Was it all
put on the roads2 If so, is the new Board
responsible for the fact that it was I'M
wisely or wastefully expended
The minutes of the old Board show
that Joseph L. Hilton, who was then
supervisor of the roads, and who had
charge of the expanding of this money
called attention, at the July meeting, 1912,
to the fact that the road fund twas almost
exhausted" 1t is not necessary to recall
the conditions that existed under the old
regime, how suggestions were made In
order that roads might be properly re-
paired and cared for, only to be contempt
uously swept aside.
Another subject is that of the two
bridges at Burlington that ought to have
been built long ago. OF course the new
Board is being blamed for the delay. But
has any one taken the trouble to look
deeply into this situations Bids were
advertised for early last year and it was
found there had been some technically,
and readYertising was necessary In Oc-
tober the con tracts were awarded for the