The Birmingham age-herald., 1915-04-07
LETTERS TO EDITOR
Copeland Replies to Statements

Copeland Replies to Statements
 To the Editor of The Age-Herald.
 feel constrained to reply to MT. Bowie in his issue of The Age-Herald of Satur- day. the Sd, in which he states that I am misnformed when I say that there is no connection between the present antci- pated bond issue and the mill tax raise. I wish to quote Judge Oscar R. Hundley and Hon. Felix Blackburn as saying that these two measures were adopted by the committee of 100 as twin measures.
 Furthermore this committee of 100 was called for no other reason than that of bringing about plan Sor the immediate and permanent relief of this city's finan- cial troubles. Does any one question which Is the more important issue? Does any one claim the immediate relief of the city as greater than the future relief' Certainly not. This committee was called for one purpose and only one-that of bringing out plan for this relief. They did but one thing-adopted the plan which lis now being inaugurated, viz, vote a g, ,250. 900 bond issue and raise the tax rate mills. Both plans are now under consideration, the bond issue is being vigorously pushed and the tax raise has been inexoduced into the legislature with reasonable assufance of it's passage.
 l am authorized by the committee for the anti-bond issue campaign to chal- lenge MT. Bowie or any of his committee to a public debate on this subject not as a participant myself, but by some member of our committee. This will inform the public as to whether we are informed in A, lool than will these letters, and not so en- croach upon the valuable space and the good nature of our daily press.
 Our argument against the bond issue is that we don't need 1t. That while all ad- init that we need the money, all well in- formed lawyears to whom I have talked, and some of them are in favor of the bond issue say that the telephone company can be forced to buy franchise and that :, ,000,0 is cheap for a franchise for the next 30 years. especially since they have enjoyed the use of our streets and alleys for the past 30 years absolutely free. They have neither franchise nor contract nor have they ever had either.
 It strikes all as strange that Mir Bowie desires to cancel all my former arguments against this bond issue because he claims one of my arguments to be unsound. The foregoing will, I think, show that that one argument is not unsound and even if 1t were, why shoud he take exception to the least important of the points I bring forward and because that is, as he claims, unfounded, put at naught all other argu- ments? Why does he not challenge my claim that we should procure this money which we need now from the telephone company? Why does he not challenge my claim that the present city commissioners could appoint board of appraisers mak- ing public their every action and have them appraise the property all over town which has been fiagrantly undervalued. It is true this committee could not raise the tax assessments, but their report made public would have sufficient moral effect to preclude the possibility of repetition of these violations. This plan would get money by January, 1916, and before that time.
 Make it public that MT. A. Is assessing the furniture in a $1,000.000 residence for $50, do you suppose he would do 1t again? Make it public that he did 1t again and that the board of revenue refused to raise him, would they do 1t again? In fact. I believe the board of revenue would make these raises, but granting that they should refuse publicity would see to 1t that they would not do it again..
 I am opposed to the bond issue, but l am not opposed to a commission form of government, which, though undemocratic, is a good business proposition. I make this statement because 1t is insinuated that those opposed to the bond issue are enemies of the present commissioners, and are enemies of the commission form of government. That they are enemies of anything such government or those com missioners offer, but that Is not true in my case nor is 1t true in many cases. We are against it because 1t promises to be a continuous performance that will never end, it is not necessary, for we can get the money elsewhere without paying $l71 per day interest and because we can meet the permanent demands of the city other than by a tax raise.
 As active. concerted action against this Issue Is now at. hand. as all arguments