The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1913-01-22

h'bS o,Off.ol
$ 1851
Therefore, of the $9,035.79 reduction
in outstanding indebtedness, $7,25811
came from overdue accounts brought
over from the former administration.
So the apparent decrease In indebted
ness is due mostly to aggressive col
lections and not to economy.
AS to the other item, the surplus:
The surplus here which many people
do not understand in these statements
Is the excess of the assets over the
Liabilities. Its value depends upon the
valuation placed upon the different
items OF the statement and could be
fictitious. In 1911 it amounted to $780,
O3O.44; in 1912 to $96,9S2.O1. This is
an apparent increase in the city's as
sets of $6,951.57. Where was the sur
plus put? $2,04725 was placed in the
sinking fund, (al1owed for when the
bonds were sold but sadly neglected
for the past few years., other little
incidentals were provided for ard 3d.
1925 was expended in water and elec-
trio light extension.
In fewer words, of the $6,951.57 in
crease in surplus $3,487.26, or over
half, went to waterworks and electric
light extension. And in addition to
this, 1t appears from comparison of
expenditures that $1,000 worth Of ma
terial was bought over from 1911 and
used for the same purpose, making q
total of about $4,000 for water and
light extension.
So over half the surplus went to
water and light extension. But in
reality, is there a surplus of $96,9S2.-
OIL? When the present value of the
water and lighting plant is taken into
consideration and an annual deprecia-
ton of per cent deducted from that,
1t will be concluded that the surplus
now is not nearly 6,9S2O1 and, furth-
er. that the increase of $6,951.57 in the
surplus will be more than offset
by the years depreciation or wear
and tear of the water and light sys-
tenn.
So, as matter of fact, what is the
situation? We are, at the best, at a
stand-still so far as increase of sur
plus goes. What funds that should
have been used largely for putting by
for rainy day" converting bonds
OF \ Z,
light extension so as to bring us to
what? So as to bring us face to face
with an added charge of $4,000 per
year for electric power.
That is the situation. The policy of
the past council has been to extend the
water and light lines at the expense of
the city's credit and in face of the
certain increase of city expenditures
for power. How much of this money
was spent on the water system and
how much on the light system, the re-
port does not show as it should. It
is sufficient to say that the electric
light system was extended enough to
almost reach that point where, If a
few more street lights are put up, an
other fifty horsepower peak will be
added to the Reedy River Power Co.'S.
account. This will mean $2,500 more
per year
IF the city's accounts are just about
balancing now and If another mill and
half had to be levied this year to
make ends meet (as has been done)
where is the $4,000 coming from? 1t
must come from additional taxes.
Reelection Of the present govern
ment means an endorsement of their
administration. 1t is logical to sup
pose, that, If they are re-endorsed at
the coming election, they will take 1t
for granted that the taxpayers favor
their policy of light extension and that
they will add enough lights on the
streets to push the load over the neces-
sary mark and thus add another ST.
500 per year burden In taxes.
If anyone wants the city to pay an
other $4,000 per year in taxes, let him
vote for the present administration. If
he does not want to pay this addition
tax, let him vote for somebody else.
The question can only be solved by
the citizens themselves.
Excursion Fares.
From Laurens to Columbia and re-