The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-10-01

MAYOR FRANK HAYES ties if did not refer to 1t. l cannot make too emphatic my complete loathing for the Pape ideal of political campaigning. I have never stopped to 1t. l do not propose to do 1t now. My reason for mentioning his name at all is that he has made him. self an issue in this election. He has raised the question whether he or the Democratic adminis- tration shall conduct the city government.
 Stand on Record
 My administration and the members of it stand on the rec ord, That is the issue of this election. That is the issue we present to the voters of Water bury. Nothing that may be said or done by our opponents will draw us away from that issue. We stand on our record. Now let us look at 1t.
 We have advised you to look at your reduced tax bills as one reason why you should vote for our reelection. That advice has brought a trade of recrimina- ton, jeers of ridicule, and 8 fu- tile attempt to belittle the re- duction. One spokesman for the opposition denies that there has been any reduction. The other insists that even if there has been g. reduction 1t did not amount to anything.
 A reduction of almost ten mills, nine and ninety-two one hundredths to be exact, may not be much of 6 reduction in the eyes of the opposition candi- dates. What is ten mills? they say. If you are inclined to swallow such a statement, l ask you to think what ten mills ADDED to your tax bills would be. Figures are stubborn things and ten mills Is ten mills either in addition or subtraction. We still advise the people of Wa terbury to look at their tax bills.
 When your administration, and 1t is yours because you elected 1t, went into office in 1880 the tax rate was 4f.92 mills. The board of finance, which 1t is alleged controlled and which is altogether untrue, fixed the tax rate at that figure. Why was 1t done?
 sn0A E.,1nnt
 The board of finance had the budget for 1880 handed to 1t by the charter commission, consist ing of three Republicans and two Democrats.
 That budget was prepared by the missions accountants and the sum 1t set forth was the amount which the accountants reckoned as necessary to carry on the city government.
 The tax rate in 1890 was 35 mills. In 1881 the tax rate was 34 mills. Tn 1882 the tax rate was 32.50 mills. In 1893 1t was 32.25 mills, and in 1894 1t was 32 mills.
 Now I am not the greatest mathematician alive and the rules of elementary arithmetic may have been changed since l went to school. But, unless they have, if I subtract the present rate of taxation which is 32 mills from the tax rate in 1880 which was 41.92 mills. get an answer of 9.92 mills.
 In the face of this simple sum in subtraction how can our op- poncnts tell you that the tax rate in Waterbury has not been lowered and lowered each year we have been In office? They insult your intelligence while ex- posing their own ignorance.
 I want to ask my opponent for Mayor if he is not paying less taxes than he was when I went into office. In 1030 his tax bill was $741.0s. Tn 1885 1t was $566.40. q reduction of $175.58 on the same property.
 I want to ask the Republican candidate for Comptroller if he is not paying less taxes now than he was when I went into office. Tn 1930 his tax bill was $77762. In 1895 1t was $583.60, q reduc- ton of s'"t.O
 Mir. Papc's Bill
 Let us iiol; at MT. Pape's tax bills and see what we can find out. In 1880 the tax bill on his Pennington Avenue house was $881.20. In 1895 the bill on tn same house was $520.00, a re- duction of $161.20. His tax bill on his publishing house in 1030 was $9,532.61. His tax bill in 1895 on the same property was $7,278.80, q reduction of twenty two hundred dollars and eighty- one cents. Under the circun1- stances these gentlemen ought to be the very last persons to say taxes have not been reduced.
 Unable to refute the figures, our opponents are trying to con- fuse the issue by changing 1t al- together. Their cry now is that Waterbury has the highest tax rate in the state. Because my time is limited, in passing let me say that 1t Is unreasonable and unjust to compare the tax rate of Q city like Waterbury with that. of q town like Colchester. But even admitting for the sake of argument that Waterbury has the highest tax rate in Connecti- cut, what does that prove? How is my administration concerned in 1t? The tax rate in Water bury as compared with that in other cities is not an issue in this campaign. We have never said that Waterbury had the lowest tax rate in the state. What we do say and what we are going to keep on saying k that the tax rate in Waterbury has been reduced over a period of i've ye~rg. 9.92 mills.
 Decrense Here
 When our Republican op- ponents tell you how high the tax rate Is here why do they not tell the whole story? Why do they not tell you that Waterbury is the only major city in the state which has reduced its tax rate? Why do they not tell you that while Waterbury has re- duced It's rate the other major