The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-02-05

with the last five years of council
manic government. The parties VINO
are behind the movement to call an
election to go back to the old mayor
and council system, are seeking TO
make great capital out OF the fact
that under commission government
much more money has been expend-
ed than under the old plan. ana tney
suggest the old form of government
as a remedy. Before going further, l
wish to say that it is not my wish TO
criticise the officials under the former
system. My criticism is directed en-
tirely at the old form OF city lovern-
ment.
In preparinR the table submitted
herewith, 1 have tried to show just
what the increase has been and what
caused it. l am using the same ns-
ures as used in the statement prepared
by o. X. Swayze, and which you SEM
me, except that 1 show five years OF
council government instead OF three.
I do this SO that comparison will show
a five year period for each form OF
government, the last five years under
the council and the first five years
under the commission. 1 believe a
close study of this table will prove
that the growth of the city. together
with changed conditions and the in
creased cost of operation in all lines
Of commercial activity, are responsible
for the increased city expenditures
rather than the form OF government.
A Natural Increase.
In order to bear out this statement.
the table will show that expenditures
increased each year during the last
five years under the old council FORM
In this connection, it is well to note
that during this same period under
council rule. the city's general bonded
debt increased each year, while during
- 1i0of ion NJ
ment. the city's bonded debt has been
reduced each year. In order to show
that the increased cost OF government
it not confined to the city alone, l
have added to the table. the tax col
lections of the school, county and
state for the past ten years; each OF
these bodies show q marked increase.
but surely the commission form OF
city government cannot be blamed
for this, and commission government.
in my judgment. should not be blamed
for the increased city expenditures.
for these expenditures would have in
creased just the same. and probably
more, under the council form.
The Fire Department.
Take the fire department, for in
stance (and the same is true of every
other city Department., it has been en-
larged as the city developed and the
cost OF operating 1t increased almost
as much during the last five years OF
council government as during the five
years under commission, notwith-
standing the fact that about the time
commission government went into eff
feet, motor fire apparatus became
necessary and was purchased by the
commission to the extent of some $40.
900.
The commission took care of this
matter and paid for it in cash, and il
was likewise called upon to provide
for an increase in salaries voted by the
old council during the last months OF
its existence. This salary increase was
voted by the old council on March 25
1910, at one of the last meetings held
by that body and the ordinance took
effect April 2, 1910. The passage OF
this ordinance alone increased city ex-
penditures in the neighborhood OF
$500 per year. Commission gov
eminent went into effect just a few
days later, and while it was in no way
responsible for it, a new form of gov
eminent is being blamed for the in
creased expenditure made necessary
by the passage of the ordinance above
referred to. Understand, I am not
contending that the salaries should not
have been raised; city employees from
mayor down are too poorly paid gov
but the point I wish to make is thai
the change in the form of city govern.
ment had nothing whatever to do with
this increased expenditure.
Councils White ELEPHANT
Still another white elephant con.