Year: 1877

! When, few days ago, we penned Q


few remarks in approval OF the bill


known az House bill No. 3O3, we had nc


idea that they would lead us into o con


troversy with the Bee-a journal fol


which we have SO high an esteem that


we should like to bo always In accord


with it. But the controversy has arisen


and we deem 1t incumbent upon US to
| vindicate the views which we have ex-


pressed in the premises; nor will 1t be


a disagreeable task, for, barring the


regret which we feel at differences oil
opinion between ourselves and the Bee,
1t is always pleasure for US to discuss


matters Of public interest with jour


nal the tone of whose utterances is 30
elevated and which has always been SO


consistent and sincere q champion OF


truth and honesty.


Having said this much by way OF
introduction, we proceed to give brief
analysis of the bill in question. 1t pro-
vides: /. That for ell taxes due to the
city previous to and including the year
1873, together with the accrued costs
and charges, the city shall receive In
payment the certificates or evidences of
its outstanding indebtedness. q. That
for the full amount Of the taxes due for
the year 1874 the city shall receive
school warrants, police warrants and
interest coupons OF said year In pay
ment OF the school. police and interest
tax, and all evidences Of its own debt
and ell admitted claims against 1t in
payment Of the balance Of the taxes due
for said year. together with the accrued
interest, costs and charges. That the
foregoing provisions shall apply also to
the taxes of the year 1875. save that the
special interest tax for said year shall
first be paid by every person seeking to
avail himself OF these provisions.


Now, what are the objections which
the Bee raises against this measure
They are, In brief: /. That Ii the prin-
ciple upon which 1t is based be just
and sound one, then 1t ought to be ex-
tended to the payment Of taxes for the
current year; but that, Ii this were
done. the city would have no money for
its running expenses.


2. That any law which attempts to
authorize the use Of valid claims against
the city as an offset to the taxes levied
for the purpose Of keeping in motion
the machinery Of municipal government
is unconstitutional and unjust.


3. That the constitution requires that
taxation shall be equal and uniform,
and that this constitutional require
ment is violated when, after a large
number Of taxpayers have discharged
their obligations to the city in actual
money, delinquent taxpayers are per-
mitted to extinguish their liabilities for
the same period with certificates Of the
city's indebtedness which, Ia the in
term, have declined in value to thirty
or forty cents on the dollar.


4. There are large outstanding claims
against the city. and the reception Of
all sorts Of evidences Of Indebtedness
in payment Of back taxes is hardly cal
culated to enable the city to extingulsh
its liabilities; it should collect it's taxes
in actual money and pay its indebted
ness according to some well-defned



We think we have given fair state
ment of the points made by the Bee, and
will now reply to them as well as We can
on the spur Of the moment.


To the first objection We answer: We
can see no objection to the application
Of the principle of this bill to the pay
ment OF taxes for the current year, nor
do We see how such an application of it
could cripple the city's resources for
current expenses. For what purpose
1oes the city levy and collect taxes +?
to meet the expense Incident