The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-04-16
Passing Time Only Streamlines I
 Waterbury's Financial Troubles

Pertinent to the current investi- gation of Waterbury's financial affairs is an editorial which ap- peared in The Democrat on Jan. 25, 1922. Pertinent, too, is a letter from a reader which appeared on the same editorial page.
 That the editorial concerned John H. Goss, veteran member of the finance board, which just now assumes first interest of the grand jury of MT. Alcorn, brings the 16- year-old opinion" up to date, in a sense. Although the antithesis of the political set-up and shift of the present probe was the case.
 The Editorial
 The editorial: titled, What MT. GoSs Failed to Explain, follows:
 John H. Goss is quoted in the morning paper as stating that it has been customary for city boards to use bond money for current ex- penses instead of borrowing at a higher rate of interest than the bond money was bringing. This is true, but in order to state the case fully MT. Goss should have added that the administration that dug into bond money for anything the proceeds from the sale of bonds was not to be used for, was careful to put it back be- fore going out of office, if 1t did not want to run chances of getting into serious trouble. MT. Goss also puts forth the claim that padded estimates are responsible for lot of trouble. Very likely, but who is to blame for that? You can twist this thing into as many shapes as you please, and view it from many angles, but in the last analysis it becomes plain that the blame does not rest on lack of charter provisions but to an utter disre- gard of them.
 Such was the situation, as cited by the editorial, when Mayor Guilfoile succeeded the Republi- can Mayor Sandland those years ago when last the Republicans ad- ministered Waterburys govern ment. Reportedly, the Democrats under wrote" about $4,000,000 of deficit and debt increases at that time.
 Says MT. Reader
 From a reader of The Demo- crat came the following letter on the matter: Date, Jan. 9, 1922.
 Editor of The Democrat: l have been watching the papers, others as well as your own, for some intelligent explanation of the three tax levies that have been made within the past month, but so far I have not seen any thing that satisfies me.
 Why didn't Mayor Guilfoile make a holler about all the debts he now introduces when the Sand land administration was making out their budget for this year and compel them to lay 40 mill tax and have done with it?
 I don't see why the new mayor should be so anxious to tax people to make up a deficit of $800,000 of bond money used by his predeces- sor. If they acted contrary to law, he is not responsible for it. Why didn't he report the facts as he found them to the aldermen and ask if they wanted to do anything about it? As it stands now his administration will be credited with the biggest special tax in the history of Waterbury, while his predecessors will get credit for the work done with the money.
 This may look like small mat ter now, but the mayor won't like to have it thrown at him if he should be in the running any more.
 We are told the bills are due and must be paid What bills? For the Lords sake, can it be pos sible that the work done for the $800,000 worth of bond money has to be paid for again? The mayor says this $800,000 was diverted from bond money to settle for current expenses. All right then, but, if it was legal to do this, the claims are satisfied and why raise money to pay them second time?
 But, in the juggling of figuring going on, it is made out that a large share of the special tax is to be turned back to the bond &C., count so that it will stand the same as if none of it had been diverted to purposes for which it was not intended.
 To some this may look like an ingenious explanation, but the public is not satisfied with 1t. If it could be shown that it was used (the money) for war purposes, people might shut their eyes to 1t. but that Is not so. It was a de-