The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-10-05
fcentInued from PaGs il fo tsIl you that 1t does not mean 1nF saving to you.
 nfisinformed

NisinfoFmcd
 AfayOr Hayes opponent in a fI<ned. statement asserted that 4he interest bearing indebtedness of the city has been increased. Rfr. Burrall either did not make kI,nk ntatement of his own free will or he Is altogether misin- formed as to the facts. If MT. Huffail was seeking the truth, a call at my office would have tur- ninhed him with 1t.
 I would gladly have shown hfn<the sworn statement of the fIrln of certified public account anfe which examine the city's books. The firm is that or George H. Kingsley & Company 1f New York. It Is a nationally known firm and enjoys the hign- est repnte. It was not hand- picked by me, but has been em- pfoyed by the City of Waterbury years before became controller.
 That firm of certified public Mceountants under oath swears fhaf the indebtedness of the City of Waterbury during our terms <,f office has been reduced three million eight hundred and sixty two thousand three hundred ana Norty-five dollars and nineteen cents.
 aI am sure that having been 1nfeled MT. Burrall will, as an honorable man, mako public ao- n1ission of his error.
 Comparison
 Unable to destroy the proof of tife reduction of the tax rate ana fl1e reduction of the city's in- debtedness in the amount have Nleutioned, the opposition IS driven into another falsehood: They say that the city's financial Handing has been so undermined 17tnt we are staggering towards bankruptcy. Let us examine the ! record.
 One excellent way of judging the financial standing of any mu- nicipality Is the bonded debt per resident. The opposition candi- dates, and the opposition press which supplies them with hgures which are altogether incorrect have been busy making compari- sons between Waterbury on the one hand and Bridgeport, New Haven and Hartford on the oth- CT. Here Is a comparison which fhev will not make for your in- formation, The comparison IS not made by me nor by any can didate on the Democratic ticket.
 It is to be found in statement of the financial standing of all the large cities in the United States issued by the Detroit Bu- feau of Municipal Research. The analysis was made by C. E. RfGfltor of Dun and Bradstreet. That statement shows that the bonded debt per capita of Hart ford as of 1885 is $104.69, or New Haven $93.s6, of Bridge port $109.27, and of Waterbury 1a4.45. These figures are com oiled without taking into consid- 1rntion the water works indebt- edress any of these cities may
 
 2 have.
 Mayor Hayes has already sub nitted figures proving that while svery major city in the state has raised it's tax rate our admlnis- tration has lowered Waterbnrys almost ten mills.
 ilThe sworn statement of Mr. Kfh9pley proves that we have re- duced our indebtedness by al- most four million dollars. 4 Lowest Debt
 The analysis of Mir. Rightor proves that the bonded debt per capita in Waterbury is the low est of the four major cities In Connecticut.
 But there is another standard by. which the financial standing of any municipality may be judged. It is the market for city bond issues and city short term notes. That market is set by bankers and brokers who are not swayed by political partisa nship nor influenced by any consider ation except facts. They do not care what party Is In office nor what party wants to get into office. They are interested only in the security of the loan they are making.
 Recently the City of Water bury sold it's bonds at the lowest rate of interest in It's history. On it's borrowing of money in antici- patton of taxes, which is a neces- sary procedure under the get up of every municipality in the state, Waterbury, because of It's financial soundness, was able to borrow at forty-one one hun dreths of one per cent, the lowest rate on short term obligations ever granted to it.
 Think what this means!
 x It means this, in 1331 we paid s60.0O a year for the use Of 100000. Now we are paying t4.10 for the same thing.
 Mutual Aid
 Our administration has been attacked for It's alleged failure to participate in the work Of the Mutual Aid, The statement has been made that, while we con- tributed nothing, we have tried to take all the credit for the magnificent work that organlz'L- ton has done. Like the other statements issued by the candi- : dates on the opposition ticket 1t is untrue.
 The help given to the Mutual ! Aid by the administration has been of a two fold character, in- direct and direct.
 The indirect help, and 1t amounts to great deal, is that from the very inception of the Mutual Aid organization Mayor Hayes insisted that 1t be di- < yorced altogether from politics and any political party. Neither he nor his administration has made any attempt of any kind to Influence, direct, or interfere in { its operation. For verification of this statement. I refer you to Lewis Reed, William Harris, the Reverend Father Cryne. the Reverend John N. Lewis or any director of the Mutual Aid. By his action, Mayor Hayes relieved