The log cabin Democrat., 1914-02-28
JUDGE PRINCE ASKS FOR FURTHER LIGHT ON FINANCES OF CONWAY DECLARES WATER AND LIGHT SYSTEM PAYS NO RETURN
 ON INVESTMENT.
Editor Log Cabin Democrat:

l want to know how the money we paid into the city of Conway has beer spent.
 Mir. E. V. Leverett says: "Value re. ceived by city for free street lights $8,350." Our light plant has cost the people of Conway, first and last, at least $5O,0O0. Give us interest or our investment at 10 per cent for 22 months, and we have paid more than 5000 for those street lights. And then Mr. Leverett says, Value receiv- ed for free water for fire protection S7,332.60." Now, our waterworks plant cost us $96,O00 Give us interest on the value of our waterworks plant at 10 per cent, and for one year we have paid $9,600 for our fire protec- tion. We have got nothing free and will get nothing free, but we usually pay two prices for what we have got ten, and judging the future by the past, we will continue to pay $2 for every S1 in value we get.
 l notice special attention called to the item in MT. Leverett's account of 80 cars of coal that cost $8,59O.52. Why did they not give the number of tons of coal bought, instead of the number of cars? If they had given the tons anybody that buys coal could have divided the number of tons into the $8,590.52 and at once he would know what the coal cost per ton; then every one that buys coal could take 25 per cent off from the retail price of coal and they would then know just what Mir Leverett should have paid for that coal
 All the debits and credits set forth in MT. Leverett's account are in bulk, and all you know therefrom is so many figures that add up so much.
 We had double boilers, with engine, in the old light plant before the new outfit was furnished. Now, said double boilers, with engine, must have cost at least $4,OOO. I notice MT. Leverett takes credit for moving old boiler and stack, $59.25," but he fails to tell us what he did with these old boilers and engine. These were valuable property and belonged to the city of Conway, and worth, at least, 50 per cent of the first cost, that is, $2,O0O l am told they were sold for $500, and the purchaser is now using them, and they are doing first-class work. Who authorized MT. Leverett to sell this property belonging to Conway for $500; and l understand this property has not been paid for at that price?
 I notice in MT. Leverett's account he says, "Checks from banks for one third payment on new machinery, S2,- 599.92." That means that he has paid only one-third of the value of the new machinery, leaving balance due on new machinery of $5,l99.s4. Now, add this amount to $6,1OO that the light plant owes the city of Conway and you have the light plant owing $11,- 299.84, and yet MT. Leverett talks about there being a net gain from the plant.
 l want to know about the money we have paid into the city of Conway, in addition to the money received from the light and water plants. We have received large sums of money from the city five-mill tax for years 1912 and 1913, about $10,OO0; and received from general county road tax about $2,200, and the 800 boys and men that have to work the streets, about $4,OOO for the years 1912 and 1913; and should have received at least $1,00O from fines and forfeitures for the last P months, making $17,20O, and to this there should be added from $50 to $l00 tax on dogs.
 Mir. Leverett's statement says the city of Conway issued and fioated $6,- 100 as a loan to finance the light plant, which sum is still standing out, that makes the city of Conway owe this $6,l00. Is it possible that the city of Conway has made away with all that 17,200 in the last 22 months and also sold the credit of the city by issuing $6,lOO in city warrants?
 l am sure that there has not been more than $2,000 spent on the streets of Conway, and to pay the marshal his salary in the last 22 months-that should leave $15,20O in cash, at least, in the treasury of the city; and in- rtand nf hn;nu. ...o,.... L: IL