The Birmingham age-herald., 1915-03-22


 day. One thing is certain, the commit tee of 100 intended that the 5-mill tax l increase be inaugurated, and you, citi- zens. who are now paying 60 per cent 1 on the real value of your property will pay 1t, to you citizens who are not doing so, it will matter but little.
 | That this bond issue would not increase the city's indebtedness can hardly be com preher ded by one of such limited mem | tality as that of the writer. As quoted my understanding of the proposed bond issue, which MT. Ward did not criticize, hence I assume 1t correct, 1t is to be divided into two parts, one to pay for the past deficit of $750,00o. This wiN pay right up to April l, 1915 The other being | $5Oo,O00 to meet the $1o00 per day until September so This is but 1so days. I can understand how the s75O,OoO to pay the debt now owing to the bank which draws | interest at per cent, would not increase the city indebtedness, and even how the GOO would also save that rate of l interest, as the bonds are to bear per l cent, but I cannot see why the city's bonded indebtedness will not be increased s3eo.eoo
 | Equalization of taxation is pertinent for l the following reason: While the city commissioners have no power to force l equalization of taxation, they could adopt a plan for board of appraisers which. | having appraised values on the property I of the very rich and the corporations of this community, and laying down. their l reasons for such valuations before the fo\- dc- irAr fo bear upon such assessor which would be wel-nigh impossible to gainsay. For in- stance the fixtures of the largest store in Birmingham are assessed at s5000 l SEould this board of appraisers show that tho tubing system in that store would cost more than that amount, would it not be well. nigh impossible to prevent this as- sessor from raising this assessment? If l this plan were adopted we would have money enough in our 1915 assessment to meet the contingency Quoting Judge Stiles in the current investigation by the | legislative committee, Any one who would force the big corporations to pay their just share of taxes could never be l reelected"
 l repeat what I said in my letter of tho iJth that I am told by member of the present legislature that 1t is impos- siblo to get any law through the present legislature derogatory to the interest of the trusts, however much it may benefit | the people. This being true, and the | anaesthesia applied to the Lewis joint l resolutions justifies, such an opinion how may we expect legislation which will cor | rect this condition which Mr. Ward prom | ises us in his letter of the 10th? After such legislation Is passed by the present legislature and after 1t has proven ef-
 fectual, the bond issue. if then neces- | sary, should be voted. At present, how ever. 1t promises to be bonds, bonds nothing but bonds without end.
 The bond issue of s40O,0OO to which re- | ferred ill mine of the 18th may have been prior to the commission form of govern | ment, but that has little bearing; the
 facts in regard to it still remain. They were voted to pay back debts of $266,0O0 | and the financial statement the following
 year showed $17,O00 of these debts still | unpaid.
 However, all these points are non-
 essential, other than that of the inequal- 1 ity of taxation. The real point at issue is the fact that several years ago the citys loans bore 3A per cent, they now bear per cent. Why has the city's
 credit been impaired? Inequality of tax
 ation has existed for years. Why not corrected, since we have for years been continually voting bonds and never pay ing any of them? We voted a commits sion form of government with the promise that it would be a financial improvement
 in city government It has not only not been so, evidenced by the bond issues and the deficits of 5000 per day, but it has ut- terly failed in being in any way con- structive. We have not made use of our public utilities We should not be called upon to cut expenses; we should adopt op- portunities for paying investments. We
 should adopt municipal ownership of those utilities which have in so many cities prov en not only a help in cutting down such expenses to the citizens, but a source o1 revenue to these cities. I respectively refe- you to the cities of Seattle and San Francisco, the report of which is
 ably submitted in Pearson's Magazine for
 March, 1915 The percentage of cities who buy their water from private concerns is
 small and continually getting smaller. In all of those cities who have shown this progress the controversies have ceased,