White Pine news. [volume] (East Ely, Nev.) 1920-1923, 1921-02-13
iLuIIuu N To
MAYOR A. B. W|TCHER
CONTINUED FROM PAGE oNE.D

lStfdtiob II a. iotoi pbpsi.
The mayor laid a very cunning trap for
the Record in the above. He is now
forced by the Record and public sentt-
inent 10 at last print a full statement of
4he city's affairs covering a period OF
nearly six years. and he desired to have
the Record do his work free of charge.
but Notwithstanding that the cost will
be considerable he is now going to have
il done in "a local paper" We wonder If
he had the nerve TO ask "a local paper
10 do this work free for the city?
Answering the Records question
as 10 how cutters and may
be re-established. | have already in
formed him In my previous commune
cation, and he wilfnlly overlooked
that there are ample funds on hand,
namely. $4,000 to take care of these
improvements. and in addition TO this
the city will have an income OF over
SIS. 900 for the balance of the year
from miscellaneous sources. which is
ample for all the city's requirements.
In the above the mayor seems TO make
a statement that all Of the available funds
on hand. namely. 5000. viii be spent on
public improvements. and in addition to
this the city viii have an income of over
el04NVN LOT the HatlAiCe OF the stdIf WfltH
is ample for AL the eity's requirements"
Maybe So. but Isn't it a fact. Mr.. Mayor.
that Ia the past the city's expenses have
amounted To at least 10000 per year.
without making any permanent improve
ments Did not your city attorney make
the statement when the bonding propo-
sition was before tho people that the "es-
timated" expenses for the year 1919 would
10 "a Bg54s ga rt9g DgaFa sIaF4 my akIaR-
sive improvements made during that
year,. II the city can be run for So. 900
per year. then why was II necessary to
expend $4,000 IN 1872
Answering specifically same Of the
Records questions. Is II not a fact
that. with the exception of an audit
Of the city finances made by Mr.. An
nand. the city failed to make any
other statement to the public during
my administrator as 10 the receipts
and disbursements OF the city, al
though requested to do SO time after
time. Monthly statements Of the
eify's nnaees have been made, dis
eussed and filed with the city records,
which are public. and Mr. Leonard
has always known thir In addi-
ton 10 the Armand audit, there have
been two others up 10 December 81.
1919. while one for 4he last year has
been ordered. the law has been fully
complied with In this respect. II
when Councilman Lowe took office he
demanded that an itemized statement
he made for the last two years IL must
have been done In ignorance of the
ssld att And as for corrugated galvan-
fact that monthly statements of the
eity's finances had been made aud
nied during the whole period IN aues-
ton.
Same Old bunk, Made aud flied away.
lat rot published
II - not > fact that I opposed the
ionaing proposition when the bonds
could have been sold to the state at
par and then later took $500 from
thu treasury and went east IN order
10 ascertain the condition of the lond
market II was only when the state
81 Nevada had refused TO take the
bonds. as the state did not nave the
money Nherewith to purchase them.
And Il was Tor this reason that I
went east TO nud "a market for a con-
templated issue OF bonds: not to pun
chase the Chairman mftisite or 10
pave Aultman street. but 10 repair
and renew the storm sewer up Murry
street. which the city administration
considers n necessary Improvement.
Ny expenses on the trip were provided
FOR at a council meeting at which I
was not present. and this WIS done
without a dissenting vote.
The mayors statement in the above is
somewhat confusing. not TO say mislead-
ing. as he includes the bonding PROPOSE
ton with the Murry street storm sewer.
the necessity for which became apparent
aome months after the bonding nroposi-
ton had been voted down. \ casual read
ing Of the opening sentence of the above
would lead TO the impression that ii was
not n fact that he opposed the bonding
proposition. the election for which was
held in the carly part Of the year.
n may be a fact that before l left
for the east the Record published IN
terxiews with some OF the business
men and taxpayers who opposed a
bond issue. but ! take II that that
was the issue which included the
chairman millsite and which was
voted down 4 TO J.
There Is no maybe" about II. Mr..
Mayor. II II a fact that the Record did
print interviews with some of the bush
ness men before your departure for the
east TO investigate tie bond market, and
these interviews should not be confused
with the bonding proposition which had
been voted down several months before.
These interviews were published June
20. and had particular reference to your
proposed trip east TO investigate the bond
market. And inasmuch rs you seem to
be somewhat confused In regard TO these
propositions. the Record viii here repro
duce the interviews as referred To above:
George n. Doyle-The time 10 foat a
bond proposition was last year. when they
could have been sold at par, but such "A
proposition was submitted to the people
and voted down by an overwhelming ma
jority. | am opposed TO selling long time
bonds unless there Is a limit placed upon
them OF 90 cents or above.
J. ii. Gallagher am not In favor of IL.
As a/menlber. of the council | favored the
storm sewer when II could have been con.
structed for about half the amount II
will cost nj the present time. am In
favor of All public improvements, but this