Creating The New Ward An Unnecessary Expense

The people of Ann Arbor are j justly indignant over the formation of the Seventh ward and the extra expense incurred, solely to malee possible the election of two more members of the pseudo-reform party in the council. The Courier, which is entitled to credit for having opposed the matter, before the scheme was completed, is now, however, i seeking to find excuses for the creation of a new ward, and even essays to defend the surreptitious change in the boundaries of the new ward. It is well to give the exact words used by the Courier: "If our excited friend will look over the map of the city, he will find the reason and the only reason for changing the boundaries, i. e., the necessity of relieving the first ward of too many voters and of making the new ward respectable in point of nurabers. " The editor of the Argus, who writes this article, resides in the first ward. He has always spent his time on election days at the polls, usually as watcher. He knows that there has never been a time when the first ward could not poll all its votes quickly and easily. And it kas the reputation of being the ftrst ward usually to have its votes counted. And every voter in the ward is cognizant of the same fact. But if the reason for the surreptitious change in the boundaries without consultation with the council is as given by the Courier, why were a reater number of people added to the new ward from the sixth ward when the boundaries were changed? This of itself shows that the Courier's reason is merely a trumped up one. To show the purely partisan charicter of the formation of the new vard one needs but to refer to the ;ensus of 1894. The population by yards was as follows: First, 2,516; Second, 2,131; Third, 1,940; Fourth, 1,908; Fifth, 732; Sixth, 1,844. Now if the change were nade to equalize the population of he wards why was not the new ward ormed from the first and second, the two largest wards in the city and contiguous territory. If that ïad been done, the three wards thus formed would have had a population of 4,647 instead of 4,360 as ormed by the repubhcan gerrymander. But we hear a republican friend exclaim, the first and sixth wards are growing most rapidly in population. But the census figures do not permit such an assertion. The increase in population from the census of 1890 to the census of 1894 was by wards as follows: First, 54; Second, 455; Third, 437; Fourth, 289; Fifth, 13; Sixth, 382. If the increase in population is to govern, these figures would indícate that the ward shóuld have been formed from the second and third, whose combined increase was 892, as against 436, in the first and sixth. Why was by far the larger number of inhabitants of the new ward taken from the Sixth ward, if the purpose was solely to equalize population ? As shown by the census of 1894 and all previous census returns, the Sixth ward is next to the smallest ward in the city in point of numbers. For the past year a growing tendency has been exhibited in city affairs to array the First and Sixth wards of the city against the four other wards and the First and Sixth wards have been on top. Does it not look as if the leaders who were responsible for this creation of the new ward were bound to aid in maintaining the supremacy of the First and Sixth wards in city politics, that these wards might reap by far the major share of the benefit. A glance at the council proceedings will indícate that the creation ui the new ward will increase the city expenses. There are three inspectors of election. This means $37.50 for every election. Two clerks and two gate-keepers adds another $14. The rent of a polling place adds $10 or $15. Then there is the sitting up of the booths and their taking down. Besides this the extra supervisor draws pay from the city wbile sitting on the board of review and there are always a good many little incidental expenses for each ward. This leaves out the big extra expense which comes frora the building of a new school house at a cost for that and the site of from $15,000 to $20,000 and the $3,500 a year necessary for teachers, jani' tor, heat and light. 1 The Argus justly asserts that the new ward is an absolutely unnecessary expense to the overburdened taxpayers, without excuse for its creation. In this expression of opinión it is backed up by the opinión of many leading citizens, republicans as well as democrats.