Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1920-03-31
Public Forum

The article by Taxpayer" appear
ing iii the last edition OF this paper,
in answer to the article by Voter"
entitled rs new road an extrava-
gance?'f 1850 full of flaws that we can
not refrain from pointing out few
of them.
In the first place we object to the
nom de plume under which he writes
as being in itself misleading, tending
as it does to give the impression that
the writer is plain ordinary tax pay
er coming to the defense of the coun-
Gil in this matter, while it is very ev-
ident that the author is himself a
councilman defending his own acts.
Councilman" would have been much
more fitting than Taxpayer"
Taxpayer starts out by saying This
article is prepared for the sole pur-
pose of giving the people OF Lancas-
ter the facts regarding the cemetery
road and not for the purpose OF stir
ring up contention or finding fault
with the author of the article i'll last
weeks issue" Let us see if he has
done So
He tells us that THE budget calls
for $4,000 for the cemetery road and
instead OF costing more than that
amount it will cost less" He does
not tell us that $4,000 from last years
budget has already been used, max
ing a total of $17,5OO
He saws "Mr. Voter gives the idea
+,a+ the cemetery road is entirely re-
snonsible for our high taxes. Let US
go if this is true" He then goes on
to state that it was found necessary
~ raise nv taxation this year the fol-
lowing amounts:
For city water WORKS. Is 8 'V VO0 90
For city work ------------ $500 90
For city expenses ---------- ooc 90
For soldiers bonus ------- o'ooo'0N
~ 90 SCI 1862
Con is he that Mr. Taxpayer" IS
IGNORANT of the fact that the item "
60 OOO for maintenance and extension,
~ the water works system or the Guy
is taken care of by the water REM
naved in by the people ana not Wy "
direct tax. or does he thlnK tnaC Tue
neople are ignorant OF THIS Iact we
admit that, with the extra EXPENSE VI
. new boiler at the pumping stdCion
this wear. something VIII propaply
have to be provided from the genera
fax but the amount VIII be cohhp"l ="
lively small.
Subtracting this $4,000 from SOL
536 92 we find left total Oh $4o'ooo.9|
IN he raised this year by taxation. 4.
Ofthis amount SIT 800 for the Gem
o+erv road-(we use SIT 500 adVlsedly'
6ecause the $500 diverted from lts
nroner channel last year must De re-
r1acad this)-and $6,S36.92 for SOL
diers' bonus, total OF S24,35o.Sz rep
resents the cause of the increase III
our taxes this year.
Nv a simple problem in arithmetic
we find that 1880 is approAlhlaIeIy
70 ner cent of 24,336 or, III othef
words that u per cent OF the increase
in orr taxes this year was due 10 the
cemetery road. Thanks, Mr.. TaXpay-
or for your figures. They prove that
we were much nearer right imam we
thought. nood
M Taxpayer tells us that the road
ie Going to cost us less than $loVVo
aud vet the only concrete evidence ne
gives ms in support of his statement IS
tbot q y Rich & Co have agreed 10
mi i'm the concrete for S12S0.Oo anu
that Will Mcmahon has agreed to erect
The guard rail for S269.00. lheh ne
goes on to say that VIII McMahoA hao
contracted to do the $500 cuplc yafuS
Of grading at SOC yard for earth anu
81 65 for stone and to DO all extra
work at cost plus 10 per cent anu
that the city is to furnish the stohe
free at the bins. He does not attempt
to tell us how much OF the grazing
will be earth and how much stone
what and how much extra work al
cost plus Is per cent there Will pc OF
what il has cost the city to quarry
and crush the stone which VIII De
used.
Mr. Taxpaver queries. Would you,
Mr.. Voter, be in favor of the city re-
,nudiating it's contracts?" Again he
queries what difference does it make
to the taxpayer of Lancaster il the
price of labor and the price of cement'I
do go UP. and what difference does it
make about freight on sand and grav-
ell. and why worry about hauling the
materials? c. K. Rich & Co. have
agreed to put in that pavement at
S1.S2 per square yard and furnish all
material except the rock" Farther
on he saws, 1.-THE council could have
rejected all these bids and had the
work done by day labor, but where
would the city be now had that plan
been adopted VIRTUALLY admitting
his belief that Rich & Co. may have
to do this work at loss.
We answer all this by saying that
nowhere in our article did we even
suggest reputation of contracts and
furthermore we will state that in
stead of congratulating ourselves that
the city has a contractor bound to de-
liver this work loss or no loss we
should, if costs of labor and materials
have gone up so much since this con-
tract was let last September that the
work cannot be done at reasonable
profit. ascertain what a fair profit is
and pay them bonus sufficient to
cover it, There are many things that
are legal which are not right and this
city is too big and should be too hon
orable to take something for nothing.
Mr.. Taxpayer becomes so absorbed
in proving that we were away Off in
orr figures and that the council has