Here Is A Kick

Editor Daily Courier: DearSir: I notice in your last evening's editíon that the council at tlieir session Monday evening, reduced the honds required of the city treasurer from $80,000 to $50,000. That action, as yon say, was a very generous deed on tlieir part, for I presume that it is difficult iust at this particular time to cure bonds, but was the council warranted in taking such action? By looking over the reports of the city treasurer as published in your paper, I find that ou the 31st of December 1894, the treasurer had on hand $63,867.05. On the 31st of January 1895, he liad on hand $66,459.47. On the 28th day of February, 1894, he had on hand $55,643.10. This money, although in the bank, I take it is subject to bis order, and he can check out any part or all of it, as he may desire. The law requires, in most instances, that a custodian of public funds sliall give a bond for doublé the amount of money that comes iuto his hands. That is the rule governing at the probate office I am told, and Mr. Gnmer, as treasurer of this school district is required to furnish bonds to the amount of $40,000, while the money that comes into his hands at aiiy one time never or seldom reaches $20,000. At the county treasurer's office I flud the same rule is applied. The city treasurer is liable to have more than $50,000 of city money alone come into his hands at one time, through the sale oL bonds the coming year if the two sewers now projected are built. The estimates on one of these alone (the Hill or Packard street sewer) was published some roonths ago as reaching $50,000, and the Huron street sewer will add some $10,000 or more to that. These sewers are built by the sale of city bonds, the city treasurer being the custodian of the funds. There is another feature that perhaps the council did not onderstand. When the bond of the City treasurer was fixed at $80,000 it was inade to cover the amount of school tax money that he collecte, and for which he is not uow required to give a bond to the school district. If this practice is changed, and the school district shall hereafter require a bond of the city treasurer, which it seems to me would be a proper business precaution, then the action oí the counnil Luight be more justifiable. If this is not done, then the council's action in reducing the amount oL the bond required was not sucli precaution as the business men composing that body would require in their onn priyate affairs. I have no other interest in this mat5ter save as a citizen and taxpayer, and . as such I am most assuredly interested. It strikes me the council has made i mistake. Very Respectfully,