The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1921-11-03

, Brid geport, Conn. Nov. 3, 1921. Mayor c. B. Wilson,
 City Hall.
 Bridgeport, Conn.
 Dear sir-The Bridgeport Sunday Herald in its issue of October 30th reports you as saying that the Re- publican Voters League had paid Guy P. Miller $7.500 for his services during August, September and Octo- Der. If you have been correctly re- ported. we wish to say that the state- ment is far from the truth, as the slightest inquiry on your part would have determined. Our total fund was conSid erably less than $7,500, and only small percentage of it was or will be paid to MT. Miller, and after all expenses are paid, we shall carry over a nice balance for next years work.
 Tax Commissioner Connors would not assess a taxpayer more than 80 per cent. of a fair value on tools, mer- chand1se. etc. You failed to state that your attention had been called to cases where this rule was not fol- lowed. The stenographic records in MT. Connors' office, with the Superior court and the Legislative committees records will clearly show that the Tax Commissioner did not follow a11S such plan. We understand that the legislators were convinced that the Bridgeport tax office was used to punish the so-caned bad naanufac- turers'' and reward the so-caIled good manufacturers" or those who would help finance the Republican machine campaigns, and this was the principal reason that induced the leg islature to abolish the Bridgeport single-headed tax commission.
 You have failed to state the amount of the assessment MT. Con- Ipors placed on John T. Kings gar fbage plant and the amount for which h rNII CT tax payer been so favored?
 You and MT. King have had much to say about the manufacturers. Have you not had the financial support from manufacturers and those hav- ing large interests in public service of your campaigns? Do you not have such support in this campaign?
 VIII MT. King prove that he has not been on the payroll of a large Also. whether or not he has been l,daained by other manufacturers and contractors and just what his re- muneration was and the nature of the services rendered for it?
 Is not the claim that the govern ment list showing manufacturers woauh more than the local tax list just political bunk?'' You should know and the public should be told Ehat the governments figures Include book or change accounts, bank bsl- ances and, i'll some caSes. branches. eabo-. outside the city. The statutes of Col.neotieut provide that the local tax commissioners cannot Include these items in the assessment of manufacturing companies. The real estate and certain tangible property in this city only como under his tuT- isiifction. and nothing mone.
 Your figures showing the increase in tax assessment homes and manufacturing establishments are misleading as you have not called at SeTltion to the enormous increase in actory constru ction and equipm ent due to the war. while there has been very little building of homes durSng the past few years.
 Is it not true that whether you are elected or not, in order to pay the ex- pcn5es Of the oity government Up to the end of the present fiscal year q special tax must be levied If so, will you tetl the voters why this most usa- usual thing is necessary, and how much you think tie special tax w1h be?
 Let us have the truth all the truth; not a quaIrer or a half.
 Yours very truly,
 THE REPUBLICAN VOTERS
 LEAGUE
 ErOr11111ittaa