What’s the Matter with the Mayor?
January 9, 1897
Summary
Richmond’s mayor shows prejudice in his explanation of salaries and policy changes.
Transcription
Mayor Richard M Taylor’s veto of the ordinances from the reduction of salaries of the City Engineer, his three assistants and the Superintendent of the Gas Works has at least been given to the public and all speculations concerning it have at last been given to the public and all speculations concerning it have at last been set at rest.
It actually teems with prejudice and appeals to the worst passions. Our readers will wonder how the Negro could have been brought into the matter, and the reproduction of the message will alone answer the question satisfactorily.
He says:
“Gentlemen, - I herewith return to you with my disapproval the following proposed ordinances adopted by the Common Council October 5, 1897, reducing the salary of the Engineer of the city, fixing the salaries of three assistant engineers, reducing the salary of the Superintendent of the Gas works.
The ordinances originally passed fixing these salaries were adopted by the required two-thirds of each branch of the Council. I cannot understand, therefore, how, by a simple majority vote, can these salaries be reduced.”
What reason is there for not approving the measure simply because he “cannot understand?” Why did he not consult the City Attorney and secure from him an opinion as to the legality of the action of the council? He says also:
“I also send you my disapproval of these proposed ordinances because I believe the citizens generally, as well as the particular officers affected, should know why you have treated this matter partially, and have discriminated against officers equally as efficient and deserving as those not touched at all. You have taken two departments only, leaving the public in doubt as to what may be proposed hereafter, and in these two departments you have discriminated among the officers, even among those having the same salaries, with equally important duties.”
He charges discrimination on the part of the council with reference to office-holders and then proceeds to discriminate himself with reference to the white and colored citizens of this community, although he solemnly swore to recognize the civil and political equality of all men before the law.
Has Mayor Taylor violated that obligation? He can refer to Negroes in his private relationship, but in discharge of his official duties, he has no right to act otherwise than the official of all the people, black as well as white, rich as well as poor.
The Mayor convicts himself of inconsistency. There is no reason to believe that he would approve of a horizontal reduction of salaries and more than he would this piece-meal arrangement. In this case, his salary is not included; in the other case it would be curtailed. He reflects severely upon the popular branch of the city government when he says:
“The saving so far proposed of about $2,500, out of the payroll for the whole city of over $500,000, does not indicate that any substantial reductions will be made in salaries. If this insignificant reduction was intended only as a starter followed by a wholesale reduction hereafter of both salaries and wages, why shouldn’t it be known? Why this piece of meal methods? Is there any purpose to substitute cheap Negro labor for any of our white employees?”
Why did he not refer to the cheap Hungarian, Italian, Portuguese, or Russian labor? Why did he single out the race of people, who, as the bone and sinew of this locality have made the city, in conjunction with public spirited white men what she is? No, it is a studied appeal to prejudice. What reference has Negro labor to the reduction of the salaries of the officeholders? Is there a citizen of African [descent] aspiring to the position of City Engineer? Is there one asking for the position of Superintendent of the Gas Works? Is there any probability of any being placed in any of the offices of the City Hall, even though the salaries be reduced forty percent, when there are hungry white men, with families to support ready to work for from seventy-five cents to one dollar per day?
And again he wails:
“Our tax-burdened white people want positive proof of fair and substantial retrenchment in expenses, and I believe I voice their wishes when I say that they will not be satisfied with anything else.
You are perfectly aware that if the appropriations to all the various departments are reduced till within the revenues of the city, you will force each of them to economy and retrenchment. If, however, we are to discriminate in this by extravagant appropriations, such as are made for by Negroes who pay less than 10 percent of the taxes, and get 40 percent of the benefits, or favor a few departments at the expense of others, the reduction of salaries, either wholly or partially, will but meet the vital question of the city living within its income.
I hope your honorable bodies will reconsider your actions concerning these proposed ordinances.”
Is a white man burdened with taxes any more than a colored man who owns the same amount of real estate and personal property?
Does a poor white man working at $1.25 per day pay any more taxes than a poor colored one working for an equal amount?
Where does the money for colored people who pay rent go, to themselves or to the property owner, to pay the taxes?
Who sells the groceries, the dry goods, the furniture, the shoes, the tobacco, the iron, the produce of every description? When colored people buy it, who gets the money?
Then, who pays the taxes, the renter or the property owner; the seller of the buyer?
It will be observed that Mayor Taylor, although aworn to do otherwise proposes to cut down the appropriations for colored schools as well as for colored poor. He would have the ignorant to roam at will amongst us and would increase the jail facilities at the expense of the educational institutions. Was there ever a more insane proposition? He is opposed to any reduction in the salaries of the officeholders and virtually says no.
But why deal with such ravings from the office of the Mayor? Why devote time and space to a review of his consistencies? The Common Council sent him a reply by the passage of the ordinances over his veto by a unanimous vote.
When men, liberal minded ones are now disposed to sit down upon demagogues, be they white or black, democrat or republican, rich or poor, the time has come for a combination, of effort on the part of all our citizens, irrespective of race or color, creed or politics in order that Richmond may be placed upon the highway to prosperity, which comes only with the songs of a contented and happy people.
It actually teems with prejudice and appeals to the worst passions. Our readers will wonder how the Negro could have been brought into the matter, and the reproduction of the message will alone answer the question satisfactorily.
He says:
“Gentlemen, - I herewith return to you with my disapproval the following proposed ordinances adopted by the Common Council October 5, 1897, reducing the salary of the Engineer of the city, fixing the salaries of three assistant engineers, reducing the salary of the Superintendent of the Gas works.
The ordinances originally passed fixing these salaries were adopted by the required two-thirds of each branch of the Council. I cannot understand, therefore, how, by a simple majority vote, can these salaries be reduced.”
What reason is there for not approving the measure simply because he “cannot understand?” Why did he not consult the City Attorney and secure from him an opinion as to the legality of the action of the council? He says also:
“I also send you my disapproval of these proposed ordinances because I believe the citizens generally, as well as the particular officers affected, should know why you have treated this matter partially, and have discriminated against officers equally as efficient and deserving as those not touched at all. You have taken two departments only, leaving the public in doubt as to what may be proposed hereafter, and in these two departments you have discriminated among the officers, even among those having the same salaries, with equally important duties.”
He charges discrimination on the part of the council with reference to office-holders and then proceeds to discriminate himself with reference to the white and colored citizens of this community, although he solemnly swore to recognize the civil and political equality of all men before the law.
Has Mayor Taylor violated that obligation? He can refer to Negroes in his private relationship, but in discharge of his official duties, he has no right to act otherwise than the official of all the people, black as well as white, rich as well as poor.
The Mayor convicts himself of inconsistency. There is no reason to believe that he would approve of a horizontal reduction of salaries and more than he would this piece-meal arrangement. In this case, his salary is not included; in the other case it would be curtailed. He reflects severely upon the popular branch of the city government when he says:
“The saving so far proposed of about $2,500, out of the payroll for the whole city of over $500,000, does not indicate that any substantial reductions will be made in salaries. If this insignificant reduction was intended only as a starter followed by a wholesale reduction hereafter of both salaries and wages, why shouldn’t it be known? Why this piece of meal methods? Is there any purpose to substitute cheap Negro labor for any of our white employees?”
Why did he not refer to the cheap Hungarian, Italian, Portuguese, or Russian labor? Why did he single out the race of people, who, as the bone and sinew of this locality have made the city, in conjunction with public spirited white men what she is? No, it is a studied appeal to prejudice. What reference has Negro labor to the reduction of the salaries of the officeholders? Is there a citizen of African [descent] aspiring to the position of City Engineer? Is there one asking for the position of Superintendent of the Gas Works? Is there any probability of any being placed in any of the offices of the City Hall, even though the salaries be reduced forty percent, when there are hungry white men, with families to support ready to work for from seventy-five cents to one dollar per day?
And again he wails:
“Our tax-burdened white people want positive proof of fair and substantial retrenchment in expenses, and I believe I voice their wishes when I say that they will not be satisfied with anything else.
You are perfectly aware that if the appropriations to all the various departments are reduced till within the revenues of the city, you will force each of them to economy and retrenchment. If, however, we are to discriminate in this by extravagant appropriations, such as are made for by Negroes who pay less than 10 percent of the taxes, and get 40 percent of the benefits, or favor a few departments at the expense of others, the reduction of salaries, either wholly or partially, will but meet the vital question of the city living within its income.
I hope your honorable bodies will reconsider your actions concerning these proposed ordinances.”
Is a white man burdened with taxes any more than a colored man who owns the same amount of real estate and personal property?
Does a poor white man working at $1.25 per day pay any more taxes than a poor colored one working for an equal amount?
Where does the money for colored people who pay rent go, to themselves or to the property owner, to pay the taxes?
Who sells the groceries, the dry goods, the furniture, the shoes, the tobacco, the iron, the produce of every description? When colored people buy it, who gets the money?
Then, who pays the taxes, the renter or the property owner; the seller of the buyer?
It will be observed that Mayor Taylor, although aworn to do otherwise proposes to cut down the appropriations for colored schools as well as for colored poor. He would have the ignorant to roam at will amongst us and would increase the jail facilities at the expense of the educational institutions. Was there ever a more insane proposition? He is opposed to any reduction in the salaries of the officeholders and virtually says no.
But why deal with such ravings from the office of the Mayor? Why devote time and space to a review of his consistencies? The Common Council sent him a reply by the passage of the ordinances over his veto by a unanimous vote.
When men, liberal minded ones are now disposed to sit down upon demagogues, be they white or black, democrat or republican, rich or poor, the time has come for a combination, of effort on the part of all our citizens, irrespective of race or color, creed or politics in order that Richmond may be placed upon the highway to prosperity, which comes only with the songs of a contented and happy people.
About this article
Source
Location on Page
Upper Left Quadrant
Topic
Contributed By
Brian Schrott
Citation
“What’s the Matter with the Mayor?,” Black Virginia: The Richmond Planet, 1894-1909, accessed May 12, 2025, https://blackvirginia.richmond.edu/items/show/24.