Decatur Democrat, Volume 50, Number 29, Decatur, Adams County, 20 September 1906 — Page 6

IBM LAW'PAYS STATE DEBT * ■ ■* 4 If a political party could b« prosecuted erlmteally for trying to obtain votes wider false pretenses, the Republican party of Indiana would be indictable for the following plank in its platform of April 11, 1906: “A Republican administration means a reduction of the public debt The present administration has reduced the debt $407,000, and during the last twelve years of Republican control of state affairs the state debt has been reduced from $7,512,165.12 to $1,289,615.12. The foreign debt of the state is now only SBOO,OOO. The option to pay this debt does not accrue until 191.0, and the debt does not become due until 1915. By reason of Republican business management we will be able to pay and cancel all of the bonded indebtedness of the state that can ever be paid the date the option to pay matures, and Mve years before it is due, without adding a mill to the state tax levy.” And also for this statement in the Republican Handbook for 1906: “When the Republican party succeeded to the control of the state finance board and of both branches of the legislature in 1895, a control which it has maintained continuously to this day, the state debt was $7,520,615.12. During the period of eleven years which has succeeded, not only have the interest charges been promptly met and provision made for normal state expenditures, but the state debt has been reduced $6,715,615.12, or to $805,615.12.” This is misleading in all its statements and flatly false in all its propositions, for “by reason of Republican business management” the debt-paying yn has been advanced, as well as in its conclusion that “the state debt has been reduced $6,715,615.12, or to $805,615.12.” The state debt has not been reduced I to that extent, and it now amounts to $1,289,615.12 as stated in the first part of the plank above. The first start toward the payment of the state debt was made by the Democratic legislature in 1889. At that time the state debt had reached the amount of $8,540,615.1.2, and owing to high interest and small revenues, the state was borrowing money to pay interest. At that time the state was custodian of the public school fund, amounting to $3,904,783, and was paying 6 per cent interest, or $234,289.99 annually on this debt. In his message to the legislature of January 11, 1889, Governor Gray recommended that this debt be funded at 3 per cent and the money distributed to the several counties pro rata, to be loaned at 6 per cent interest. He said. “This would not reduce the revenues to the school fund, and would furnish a large amount of money to be loaned to the people At a a^r rate of interest. The borrower would then pay the interest on the school fund instead of the taxpayers of the state, and the state save on account of interest $117,143.50 each year, a sum greater than the entire expenses of angular session of the general assembly. For the final extinguishment of the stat? debt, > a tax of two cents on each one hundred dollars should be levied and collected, which tax when collected should constitute a public debt sinking fund to be applied in payment of the public debt under such directions as may be prescribed by law.” - - • In -his inaugural address of January 14, 1889, Governor Hovey did not mention state finances, but the legislature adopted Governor Gray’s recommendation, and by the act of March 8, 1889, provided fbr the issue of $3,905,000 of 3 per cent bonds, and the distribution of the fund to the counties, as recommended. It did not act on the recommendation for a sinking fund tax, because it was felt that the tax law should be first revised, and that the subject should be carefully studied before action was taken. In his message to the Democratic legislature of 1891, Governor Hovey gave a statement of the state’s financial condition and the need of some remedy, closing with the words, “Gentlemen, the problem is in your hands, and I trust you may find away to solve it by just legislation.” The legislature responded by passing the tax law of 1891, which was opposed by Republican members and bitterly assailed by the Republican party in the next campaign. The Republican state convention held June 28, 1892, was presided over by Charles W. Fairbanks. Mr. Fairbanks was then a private citizen, but he was A corporation man, a railroad lawyer, and was planning to break into the *'united States senate at the first opportunity. He was indignant about the new tax law, and in his speech to the convention said: "The people of Indiana expect us to relieve them from the cruel and unjust burdens imposed upon them by the Democratic tax law. ♦ ♦ * The present odious tax law is a Democratic measure, passed to rescue the financial credit of the state. • ♦ ♦ I misinterpret the signs of the times if the people do not repudiate the law and the Democratic party at about one and the same time in November next. • * • How long will the patient people endure these things? How long will they elect Democratic members of the legislature who do not possess the discriminating ability to place the financial affairs off the state on a broad and conservative basis and who will not more carefully legislate in the Interest of the people? * » * There Is one way to cure the tax law, and that is to radically revise it The inequalities can be effectually removed in that way.” The platform adopted at the same convention said: “We arraign the Democratic party for enacting an unequal and unjust tax law. We demand Its radical revision.” But it was made plain to the people that the new law made a great advance toward equality in taxation; that it increased the.taxes actually paid by the great corporations more than $1,000,000 a year; anfi that Republican local officials, in an effort to make the law odious, had unnecessarily Increased local taxes.* The people indorsed the law in the election, and it stood the test of assault by the corporations in the Supreme Court of the United States. It has been Widely followed in other states. Under the new tax law there was but one increase of the debt, it being necessary to borrow $300,000 because no tax could be collected under the new • law for more than a year after its passage. But that was not reducing the debt, and in his first report, of December 1, 1892, State Auditor Henderson said: “The aggregate public debt of the state is $8,830,615.12, on which the annual interest is $286,025. We should now begin seriously and earnestly the arduous work of debt paying, before the credit of the state becomes impaired through failure to promptly meet our obligations upon maturity. I am thor- > oughly convinced that the only certain plan for the extinguishment of the . public debt lies in a sinking' fund. A tax of four cents on the hundred dollars would yield $500,000 per annum, and at this rate the public debt could be entirely wiped out' in seventeen years. I also suggest, in this connection, that the state finance board be authorized to apply such balances as may exist in 1 the general fund of the state treasury, not otherwise appropriated, to assist in the liquidation of the bonded indebtedness as it shall become due.” Governor Matthews indorsed this proposal in his inaugural address of January 9, 1893, «aying: “It is not indispensable that the public debt should be paid immediately ■ It was created largely for public buildings and necessities, of which other generations as well as the present will have the benefit, and can justly afford in part at least, to pay. The debt is drawing but 3 per cent interest, but it would cobt the people 7 or 8 per’ cent to borrow the money to pay the taxes necessary to its immediate extinguishment. It is not a large debt for such a state, and its payment is not being pressed. Provision for its gradual reduction and ultimate payment would be quite sufficient. But steps toward this end should not be overlooked and neglected. The surest way to accomplish a reduction year by year in such a debt would be the creation of a sinking k- fund to be used solely for that purpose, and to be applied as rapidly as accumulated.” These recommendations were adopted, and by the act of March 1 1893 < a staking fund tax of 3 cents was imposed; and it was provided that priated balances in the general fund might be applied to the payment of the state debt., The effect of this legislation is best seen in the figures from the Annual reports of the state auditors, for the state debt, the annual interest

— — charge, and the receipts from the Kinking fund tax, as follows, the figure* being for October 81: Year. State Debt Interest. Sinking Fund. 189258,830,615.18 $286,025 1893 8,490,615.12 275,825 1894. 7,920,615.12 257,725 $195,169.80 1895 7,520,615.12 243,725 ’ 385,211.69 1896 6,920,615.12 224.225 379,629.07 1897 6,200,615.12 200,925 383,750.60 1898 5,700,615.12 185,925 387,638.09 1899.. 5,187,615.12 170,565 393,229.32 1900 4,704,615.12 156,075 396,878.67 1901 4,204,615.12 141,075 396,043.29 1902 2,887,615.12 101,565 406,413.35 1903 2,437,615.xZ 87,865 414,559.70 1904 1,902,615.12 70,590 438,400.64 1905 1,443,615.12 56,620 457,672.15 It will be noticed that our Republican friends start their claims of debtpaying with 1895 —the first year that the full sinking fund tax was paid—although Governor Matthews held office till January 1, 1897, and although there was no change in the system that had been inaugurated by the Democratic legislatures. But indeed, so far as that is concerned, they have never done anything toward paying the state debt, but pay out moneys provided for that purpose by Democratic laws and required by law to be paid on the debt The period that they have made the most parade of was the administration of Governor Durbin, covering the years 1901-2-3 and 4. In these four years the debt was reduced from $4,704,615.12 to $1,902,615.12, or a total of $2,802,000. The only Democratic governor in the period was Governor Matthews, whose term covered the years 1893-4-5 and 6. In these four years the debt decreased from $8,830,615.12 to $6,720,615.12, or a total of $2,110,000. This makes an apparent showing in favor of Governor Durbin of $692,000; | but note the difference: First—ln Governor Matthews’ four years the total receipts from the sinking fund were $960,010.56; while in Governor Durbin’s four years the sinking fund receipts were $1,654,416.98, or $694,406.42 more. Second—ln Governor Matthews’ four years he paid $1,001,500 of interest; while Governor Durbin, in his four years, paid only $401,095 of interest, or $600,405 less. Third —The payment in Governor Durbin’s time that was materially larger than the sinking fund receipts was In 1902; and in that year the national government paid the state an old war debt of $635,859.20, which was at once applied on the state debt. These three items make a total of $1,930,670.62 that Governor Durbin had of more money to pay with and less to pay; so that in reality the record of Governor Matthews was $1,238,670.72 better than that of Governor Durbin. In other words, he paid that much more out of the general revenues, and the Republican record of “Republican business management” shows very poorly in the.comparison. But that is not all. In his anxiety to make a show of debt-paying, Governor Durbin not only used all the revenues belonging to his own term, but also encroached on those of his successor, Governor Hanly, Who, after pointing to the fact in his inaugural address of January 8, 1905, said: “This condition of the finances will become an actual embarrassment to the treasury before the end of the current year. It can be met only by borrowing money outright, or by anticipating the revenues for the next fiscal year. Debt paying is commendable, but the present embarrassment could have been saved by conserving the general fund and applying only the sinking fund to the payment of the debt, especially so as such fund would have been ample to meet the entire bonded foreign debt long before it would have become due. The revenues for the present year have been anticipated to the extent Os $529,659.03.” Governor Durbin and Governor Hanly may fight out the question of the propriety of Governor Durbin’s course, but neither one of them has any ground for claims of credit for “business management” in the payment of the state debt, or for trying to take from the Democratic party its just credit fpr making the extinguishment of the debt both possible and compulsory. I A RECORD OF WASTE, MISMANAGEMENT AND DECEPTION. '’W’Svf 9 The managers of the Republican state campaign have attempted to gain favor with the people and a continuance of their control of state affairs by talking loudly about their “business management.” These claims have no foundation in fact. On the contrary the Republicans have bungled and juggled the state’s business, and have been guilty of gross mismanagement, wasteful extravagance and the rankest sort of hypocrisy. Increased Cost. They have enormously increased the cost of the state government without corresponding returns to the people. Though the taxable property of the state has increased immensely more in proportion than the legitimate expenses of the government, the rate of taxation has not been reduced but has been increased, and the large revenues th,us raised have been recklessly used. Appropriations Double. Nine offices in the statehouse for the expenses of which the last Democratic legislature appropriated $132,160, received appropriations from the Republican legislature of 1905 to the amount of $297,112, an increase of $164,952. A Big Deficit. When the last legislature met, after ten years of Republican rule, it faced a deficit of more than a half million dollars and the state’s revenues had been anticipated far in advance. Advance Payments. For the. year ending October 31, 1905, the state had received “advance payments” from the counties aggregating $994,449.03. Without these advances it could not have met its obligations except by an issue of bonds. Growth of Expenses. The report of the state auditor for the fiscal year ending October 31, 1905, ■bowed that the state’s gross receipts for that year, including the advances, amounted to $9,260,827.07, which was more than $3,000,000 ta excess of the total receipts for the last year the Democrats were in power. Arid yet, notwithstanding its great receipts, the state, under Republican "business management,” lacked nearly a million dollars of being even. Queer “Housecleaning.” Three Republican state officials have been forced to give up their offices under charges of misuse of the state’s funds, and for this Governor Hanly claims credit, though his actions were marked by unworthy discrimination and favoritism, and in the face of the fact that to gratify a personal feeling he directed the whitewashing of charges of gross mismanagement against the superintendent of the girls’ industrial school and Ignored the accusation that an investigation of abuses in the Southern hospital for the Insane was another whitewashing performance. Hypocritical Claims. The Republicans claim credit for a reduction in the per capita cost of maintaining the state’s benevolent institutions and for the “just, humane and efficient treatment” of the state’s wards. But it should be rtmemberedvkat the superintendents of the most important of these institutions (not including the girls’ industrial school and southern hospital) are Democrats who have held their positions since the administration of Governor Matthews, and whom the Republicans have not dared to displace. Unneseesary “Legal Advisers.” In the attorney general’s office there are, Iwaide* the chief official, four salaried assistants and deputies and an ample corps of stenographers. There is, also, an unlimited appropriation for traveling expenses. And yet the people witness the spectacle of the governor employtag at the public expense special legal advisers and helpers for the state to perform •services which should be performed by the attorney general and his force. Costly “Experts.” The governor also appointed nearly a year ago two friends as “experts" to investigate something or other. And though neither of these men had any previous reputation as an “expert,” Governor Hanly fixed their compensation at $25 per day each and supplied other persons to do the actual work —whatever it was or 'is. So far as is known, all of these men are drawing their pay yet, and up to Sept. 1 of this year the “admitted” cost had reached the sum of i $6,203.44. * The above are only some of the thing* that throw light on RepnbHcMl “business management" in the state.

— !————>—! Republicans Double the Cost. The Democratic state platform reSites that since 1894 the Republican party has been in absolute control of the executive and legislative departments of our state government, and charges that unnecessarily and largely increased the number of officials, the salaries of officials, the ex-' penses of public business and the burdens of taxpayers.” This charge is true. The Democrats were in power in the state in 1893 and controlled the legislature, but since that time the Republicans have been in control. A comparison of the appropriations made by the Democrats in 1893 for the principal offices with the Republican appropriations made in 1905 does not tell th* whole story, but it tells enough to show the vast difference between the two parties in handling the public funds. In 1893, when Claude Matthews was governor, there was appropriated for the executive department $12,020. In 1905, when J. Frank Hanly was governor, there was appropriated for the executive department $57,400. In 1893 the Appropriation for the secretary of state’s office was $9,400. In 1905 the appropriation was $18,700. In 1893 the appropriation for the auditor of state’s office was SIO,BOO. In 1905 the appropriation was $21,800. In 1893 the appropriation for the treasurer of state's office was $5,820. In 1905 the appropriation was $9,520. In 1893 the appropriation for the attorney general’s office was $4,800. In 1905 the appropriation was $18,870, besides an indefinite hum for the traveling expenses of the attorney general and his deputies. Besides all this, extra “legal advisers” have been employed to perform duties which should have been performed by the attorney general’s regular force. In 1893 the appropriation for the office of superintendent of public instruction was $6,600. In 1905 the appropriation was $12,122.38. In 1893 the appropriation for the adjutant general’s department (including the support of the militia) was $39,520. In 1905 the appropriation was $79,950. The salary of the adjutant general was Increased from $1,200 to $2,250 and the quartermaster general from S6OO to $1.26,0. „... In 1893 the salaries of the supreme court judges were $4,000 each and the salaries of the appellate court judges were $3,500 each, with no clerk hire. In 1905 the salaries of "both the supreme and appellate court judges were $6,000 each, making an annual increase of $25,000 in the salaries of the two courts. Besides, In 1905 the supreme court judges were each allowed SSOO annually for stenographic and clerical help and the appellate court was allowed $2,160 annually for the same kind of help. In 1893 the appropriation for the office of supreme court reporter was $5;700. In 1905 the appropriation was $8,650. The appropriations for the above offices alone show that the Republicans have more than doubled their cost to the taxpayers. The figures ■how that the Democrats appropriated a total of $132,160 as against a Republican appropriation of $297,112, a difference of $164,952 in favor of Democratic economy. State Administration Should be Changed. For twelve years continuously the Republicans have had the custody of the business and records of the state. It is known that there has been grave mismanagement and extravagance. It is known that three officials have ben forced to resign. A prominent Republican has been quotedas saying that if the governor wanted to do a thorough job of "housecleaning” he should first kick out other officials and then himself resign. Nobody knows the actual condition of the state’s affairs during the last twelve ’-years, and. nobody will know | until there is a thorough overhauling of the books by competent men. Personal friends and political favorites of the governor who pose as “experts” at $25 per day will not do. It has been grudgingly admitted that they blundered in some things. How often they have blundered where the fact has been concealed nobody knows. Their work seems to be wholly worthless. Perhaps there is no real intention that it shall accomplish substantial results. The people should put new men in the state house. Turn the Republicans out. They have had unbridled power for twelve years. .They have mismanaged and misbehaved. But how much? The truth will only be known when new mefi—Democrats—are in the offices. Then there will be no partisan reason for mystery or concealment Is Thievery Ever Sacred? The Republican campaign text book, just Issued, states in the most positive way, that no changes win be made in the present tariff schedules. The book further decares that the “system of protection, as exemplified by the operation of the Dingley law, is sacred and must be maintained.” And yet the Dingley rates were made 20 per cent higher than even the rankest protectionists asked, so that they might be reduced in favor of other tariff countries in return tor *lmilar favors. At least that was the explanation made at the time the law was passed. But it was a false pretense. It was a trick to deceive the people and give tne trusts the benefit of the larger “protection” and a chance to charge American consumers higher prices. It was sneak thievery at the Inception, but, according to the Republican campaign managers. It ha* become “sacred.”

Paragraph's About State Politic*. When the last legislature met th* State government not only faced a deficit of half a million dollars, but its revenues had anticipated far in advance. It was a question whether the state should issue its bonds to pay Its debts of to make shift in someother way. Its financial affairs, as declared by Governor Hanly himself,, were in a condition of “embarrassment.” It had not only gone to the bottom of the money barrel, but it had scraped holes in it. The Republicans, with their “wise business management,” were afraid to issue bonds, so they concluded to make more hole* in the bottom of the barrel. In other words, they determined to keep on calling for advances from the county treasurers, thus anticipating the state’s revenues and more. By this method the state is getting further behind, though the people are paying enormous taxes. One of the striking things about the Democratic state convention when compared with the Republican convention, was the earnestness of the delegates. Unhampered and uncontrolled by the bossism that characterized the Republican gathering, the men chosen by the Democrats of the state to represent them at Indianapolis went about the business before them with a full appreciation of their responsibilities. Every man seemed to feel that he was transacting the public’s business and that he must act his part well. And everyone did act his part well, and the people can vote for the ticket nominated, knowing that from top <.o bottom it was selected for absolute fitness. The Republican state committee met at Indianapolis last week to “arrange a plan of campaign.” Boss Joe Kealing is not a member of the committtee, but he was present to give the necessary instructions. Kealing is the chief executive officer of the Falrbanks-Hanly-Hemenway combination. I,t was he who made the fieldgates to the Republican state convention last April feel like tradingstamps. It was he who, acting for the state ring, dominated the convention, and dictated the ticket Joe Kealing has no reputation as a “house-cleaner” or anything of that sort and will not try to acquire one in that line. He merely handles the whip. —' t - The state board of tax commissioners, composed of one lonesome Democrat and four Republicans, including Governor Hanly, chairman of the board, early in its decent sitting assessed the Adams Express company at the rate of $657 a mile. The express company objected and filed an injunction suit. At this sign of fight the tax board, Governor Hanly chairman, hastily backed down and fixed the assessment at $329 a mile. The express company had asked that the assessment be put at $319 a mile. But having come down $328 a mile the board .didn’t think it would look well to give up the other $lO. It is costing the people of Indiana, according to the reported . receipts, more than $3,000;000 a year more to run the state government than it cost'» under a Democratic administration. And yet when the last legislature met there was a large deficit, and at thte- . time the state is only saved from th* absolute necessity of issuing bonds to meet its obligations by getting enormous advances from the counties., This is the "business management” of which the Republican politicians speak. L ' If Indiana should be compelled to. endure a few more yearfe of "business management,” touch as the Republicans have given it, it will either have to go to borrowing large sums to pay. the expenses, that are being pilqd up by the Republicans or ,elpe the taxes 1 will be enormously increased. The state, at the end of the last fiscal year, had anticipated its revenues a million dollars. It' had drawn that much on the fhture. In other * words, *tt wsta'W < million dollars behind its current ex- ■; penses. The report of the auditor of state for the fiscal year ending Oct. 31, 1905, shows that the state received "advance payments” amounting to $994,449.03. If it had not been for this anticipation of revenues, the state, regardless of other expedients, would have lacked nearly a million dollars of having enough to meet its expense*. This is another fine example of Republican “business management.” The last Republican legislature refused to pass the anti-trust bill, but did pass the notorious ditch law, and its action is approved by the Republican state platform, which recommends and indorses "the record of our Republican senators and representatives in the last general assembly.” This indorsement also covers many other offenses against the people of the state. The Democrats, it should be remembered, provided the money to pay the * state debt and nailed it down so that 1 it could not be used for any other pur- ; pose. And now the Republicans ar* • claiming great credit because they did not steal the money, but applied it as the law required. This, in effect, is what their platform yt&dly means. s The salaries of all state official* : have been greatly Increased, from th* i governor down, but there would be no money to pay them without getting advances of tax payments from the ■ county treasurers. This Is a part ot - the “wise business management” that the Ropublica - * talk about I' ’ /