Increased Expenses

The Argus seems to have stirred ii[ a hornets' nest bv its article on "Expensive Politics" in its issue last Tuesdav and it begs its readers pardon for taking up so much space in this issue to maintain its position on the ground the issues should be squarely stated; the facts made plain and i ■ disputable and no pettifogging and subterfuges permitted to exist. lt is an important question that confronts the people. The city expenses have been greatly increased during the Dast year, outside of the sewer expenses and there is nothïng to show for the increase. The Courier essays to befog the issue by pleading the assessment per $1,000, losing sight of the fact that so many hundred thousand dollars were added to the tax rolls through the mortgage tax law. It also juggles with the city balances, as if that had anything to do with it. The juggling can be shown bevond doubt, but it has nothing to do with the question. The actual expenses can be shown beyond question. The fiscal year ends March i. During the fiscal year ending March i, 1895, the actual money paid out by the city was #66,938.66, of which $17,156.49 was for sewers and sewer bonds, leaving $49,782.17 for ordinary city expenses. These figures are shown by taking the published rnonthly reports of City Treasurer George H. Pond. The expenses by months during the past fiscal year were as follows: March 5,857.53 April 3,644.87 May ' ..." 3,037.68 June 3,979.16 July 7,709.91 August 3,451.27 September 3,791.21 October 3,366 20 November 8,444.79 December 10,045.09 January ..." 7,326.48 February 6,284.47 Total $66,938.66 Deducting sewer expenses. . . 17,156.49 City expenses $49,782.17 The city expenses of the fiscal year ending March i, 1894, less sewer expenses, were $45,600.55, or $4,181.62 less than during the past fiscal year. ■ We assert also that outside of the sewers, no great public improvements have been made. The streets, for instance, were never in worse shape. As a matter of fact, the increase did not come for street improvement, the street expenses having actually been less than the preceding year. Under Thompson's administration there was spent from the street fund $6,837.15, and during Darling's the expenses were $6,368.39, or $468.76 less. And yet in spite of the decrease of $468.76 in street expenses, the city expenses including streets increased 4,181.62. Such is the record of the reform administration as to city expenses.