The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1917-03-31
Mr.. FISCHER REPLIES TO DAILY
TRIBUNE'S EDITORIAL.
Minneapolis, Mimi,
March "a, 1917.

Minneapolis, Mimi,
March "a, 1917.
Editor of the Tribune:
AS party to the controversy that
inspired your editorial March 18th en-
titled "Cheapening Public Service"
permit me to reply that the sum of
$500 per year is not, as you agree,
sufficient salary to cover the services
rendered to the public by a park COM
missioner. 1t would total to the entire
park board a sum equal to the salary
of two aldermen. 1t seems, however,
that the objection to salary by men,
bers of the board present and absent,
is hardly based on economy, since the
finance committee but recently recon-
mended a salary raise which, while
adroitly including small increases to
minor employees, in the aggregate ex-
ceeds the total sum involved in a SAL
airy of $500 per year to each member
of the board, and they did it without
the bat of an eye or expressing
single word on how much interest it
would pay on "bond ISSUE"
A salary to members of the park
board was not offered in the legis-
lature as remunerative measure, but
as corrective to conditions that now
largely enable a select class of our
citizens to control the boards activi-
ties to the exclusion of the rank and
file to representation, for the reason
that such cannot afford the time re-
quired to fill the Office without COM
pensation. The members who object
to salary, in protesting, ask that their
names be withheld from public; and
should, it seems if sincere, rather
court publicity. You compare mem
bers past and present and dwell on
the disinterested public service rend-
cred by such men, to some of whom
you refer by name. In this particular
connection let me remind you of the
promotion of a Cemetery Association,
chartered many years ago as benevo-
lent proposition, exempt from taxes,
and developed Under small original in
vestments into one of the most mer-
cenary and profitable institutions in
this city. Omitting the many minor
profitable favOrs handed to this asso-
citation by the park board, and to be
conservative, little short of million
dollars has been gathered in. taxes
from the city at large, since the adop-
ton of the Park Board Act, and ex-
pended on acquisition and improve
ment Of property adjoining and sur
rounding this private property, impart-
ing an unearned Increment worth hum
dreds of thousands of dollars to it's
owners, while in the meantime such
ownership was directly or indirectly
represented in public office. Obvious
ly, such coordination of public and
private interests has resulted in great
pecuniary advantage to the latter
charged to the taxpayer, these splen-
did improvements were passed to this
private property as free gift. This
is but one of the many similar CO.
operative activities between public
and private interests under past and
present control of public servants
whom you would now crown with a
halo of altruism.
Your editorial disparages the good
faith of present members whose views
may differ from those to whom you
accord special protection and praise;
while to order and direct special i'm
provements to favored localities and
charge the bill to the city at large is
perhaps just human; it falls far short
Of disinterested public service. Moth
ing would so effectively check such
tendency and control as a few mem
bers elected from the ranks of the
lower strata. For this reason alone,
a salary to park commissioners and
school commissioners, as we'll, would,
in my humble opinion, be the best
corrective investment the city could
make at this time.
r. E. FISCHER.