The Wrangell sentinel., 1927-04-28
?. c. Mccormack:
 (Glerk of School Board)

Considerable discussion and eomz ment has been expressed by the proponents of the bond issne al he coming election for that purpose. and why Il should receive yonr en- dorsement.
 As this is a matter of grave im- portanee To the taxable property holders. t would be tbe part of wis dom on your part. before eastius your vote to consider well the uI- innate results and obligations per taining to the future welfare of your town, should this bond issuu pass.
 In the first place 1t might E well 10 correct an impression. put lished in your issue of April i4th reporting an address by Dr Nba= ley at the P.-T.A meeting in which he illustrated figures on the black board quoting certain cred it's as all asset that would reduce the cost of the bonds if passed He quoted the item of refund under H. B. 10 which effected a differ enee based upon last years school would be benefited to the extent of S3,l50; in other words instead Of the council turning over to the school board upon that basis S5.250 they would under the new law turn over S2,100 Of course the differ enee would accrue to the benefit of the town. but would not be con sidered as a direct credit in favor of the bonds if passed. This was the general impression conveyed. do not mean Intentionally. hut in any case that was the understand ing of a majority present at thaf meeting which would tend 10 mis- lead the voters
 Now as to the status of this bin in question; il provides for a bond issue of $5o,000 for a school and S30.0oo for water bonds to be sold at par value drawing 6 percent in- terest. but weak point in the bill is that it does not provide any method to meet the interest on said bonds
 Now as to your ability 10 meet the interest on said bonds. accord ing to the report of the finance committee Of the council, they show a deficit of S15.28401, draw ing interest at s percent. or annual interest of $1222.73. In this con nection l would state that the council is exercising the limit of the , percent tax levy as provided by law. I would appreciate it if the proponents of this issue would enlighten Us as to what their meth od would be 10 meet this emergency. Have they anything to offer?
 You can readily see by the finan= cial report that present resources of revenue are inadequate to meet current expense and improvements
 Now, should you by your votes endorse this issue. Now, comes the serious problem, should your school bonds run for period of 20 years, s50,000 at percent. S3.000 per year interest, would mean that in 20 years you would have paid $60,000 and still have your $50. GOO on your hands. And should the water bonds of s30.000 pass an ad- ditional interest of S36,000 at the end of that period. Furthermore, in order to dispose of these bonds you would have to pay a broker at least 10 percent. and for legal serv- ipes. not less than percent. would make a grand total of $108.0o0 and still have your original bond issue of $SO,000 to take care of.
 I usually hear the argument ad- Vanced, if Juneau and Ketchikan can bond and retire them within reasonable time why not Wran- gell? You must remember that both of these places have abundant resources and receive a large tax roll. Even Petersburg has greater visible resources than we have, and their last financial report shows healthy condition. No municipal debt. What have we got? A defi- cit of our $15.000 a small tax roll and the only visible industry to create revenue is your sawmill, and the greater part of it's employ ees are non-residents, nonprodue- CTS.
 Take the history of small towns similarly situated as we are. ASK your fellow toWnsman, Mr. Gundef- son, what happened to South Bend, Wash. The town voted bonds, taxes became so excessive the greater nart of the population founded the new town of Raymond, and aban- doned their holdings and moved there. MT. Gunderson told me that he had to abandon property cost ing years of toll and savings. To- day it is practically owned by the bonding company.
 Understand that I am not un- mindful of the fact that we need new school, especially a high school and have for a number of years stressed the necessity of a special tax levy for that purpose (which would have to be granted by con. gress). I would suggest a levy of 2 percent for two years, which ac- cording to last years tax return would amount to $25,00o and the third year, percent, which will intimately be your only recourse if your bond issue does not pass.
 In conclusion, I would say, MT. Taxable Property Holder and Busi- ness Man. when you cast your bal, lot vote to protect your homes ana safeguard your business; disregard