Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 22, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 17 June 1892 — TAX CONSPIRACY. [ARTICLE]

TAX CONSPIRACY.

Work if Republic** Schemers With the Scktoi Revenues. Bow the Taxpayers, of Indiana Are Made to Suffer In the Attempt to Make the Tax Law Odious. Oyer Three Hundred Thousand Dollar* Increase of Tuition Money Alone la the . Repnbliean Counties of the State, and j Increases Wherever There te a Repnbliean Official In a Democratic County. Interesting Fact* for Taxpayers. There has been a great deal said in Republican papers about the “Jewett Circular” advising Democratic local officials to reduce their local tax rates so that they would not raise more money than they did last year. The following tables will show why that advice ought to have beers taken by all local officials in regard to the matter of tuition taxes. It was well known at the time the taxes were levied that there wpuld be a large in-

crease es tuition money distributed by the state. The state superintendent of public isatnctioß had given public notice that the increase would be at least seventy-five cents to each child of school age—that is to say, between the ages of six and twenty-one years—in the entire state. Every local school official knew the number of school children enumerated in his township or town, and knew what the increase would be at seventyfive cents per capita. If he did not, he did not have intelligence enough to hold the office. It was the plain duty of each of them to reduce the local school taxes to that amount, unless there was some special reason for an increase of tuition taxes in any particular locality. It will be seen from the tables that democratic officials, as a rule, endeavored to do this, and Republican officials, as a rule, endeavored to make the local tuition taxes as high as they could. The distinction is not so marked, as itshould be because there are many Republican trustees and town boards in Democratic counties, and these have almost universally put their school taxes up. Of course their increases offset just so much of Democratic decreases, and they are sill included in the following table except the increase made by the Republican school board of Indianapolis:

Democratic Conntlw. § S g £ h! hs h”" s r i l Ft 1 counties. ■* : f •5* I? f: 1 ' ! ■" : & :S. 11 |: * : * js i § r Pig if ;§ :f ;;g Arfama ~ $6,253 62 $5,412 25 $ 158 50 Alien ;;;;;;;; 17,61875 18,29250 07375 Bartholomew 3,450 82 G. 723 75 10,174 57 Blackford 747 28 2,799 00 2,051 72 Bsown * 8 32 2,880 75 2,872 40 camu. 4,mm 4,50075 8,79334 cw 6,926 37 8,466 28 1,539 83 Clark!..!! 8,674 90 8,614 20 *SB 70 Clay 4,942 96 9,522 08 4,579 04 Crawford!.!!!!!;!!!!!!!:'.!!:!!! "554 30 4,082 25 4,636 ei Dearborn... 4,073 50 6,081 00 2,007 95 DeKalb ......! ,!J“” 4,542 70 5,675 25 1,132 55 Dubois "' 3,874 08 5,538 00 1,663 92 tFioyd ''soot 8,21025 8,20392 Franklin 4,041 38 4,802 25 760 87 Fulton !!!!!!!!"". 2,9900 s 4,43775 1,441-67 Hancock ...’!!!!. !!!!! i 27 ii 4,588 50 4,716 21 Harrison 8,420 69 5,800 00 2,379 31 Jackson .!’’"' 1.297 84 6,802 25 5,501 41 Johnson .!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 73690 4,00050 5,42740 Knox 685 61 7,799 25 7,113 64 LaPorte ■ 8,634 70 9,496 75 802 05 Madison’!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 2,90200 10,47375 7,57175 Marion (City of Indianapolis „ „„ „„ excepted) 5,487 30 8,518 50 14,005 80 Marshall. 9,143 20 8,134 20 1,009 00 Martin * 1-358 28 4,001 00 2,642 72 Miami 6,240 44 7,112 25 *B7l 81 Owen 1,582 22 4,080 00 2,497 78 ' 4P«rrv 5,293 50 5,293 50 Pike ..." 1,023 78 5,115 25 4,091 47 Posev 3 069 84 6,804 75 9,874 59 Pedaski 393 45 3,506 25 3,212 80 Putnam 540 92 5,457 75 4,916 83 KiDley ■ 1,134 21 3,938 00 2,803 79 Bcott 1,200 18 2,042 50 822 32 Shelby ” 4,800 38 6,612 75 1,812 35 starke!!!!!!;!!!!;;;;;;::;!::::: wiii 2,18250 2,885 62 St. Joseph 3,528 62 ■••••••• 11,040 75 14,569 37 Sullivan 4,043 59 5,680 25 1,036 66 Switzerland:::::::::::::::::::: :::::::: 4,25398 3,27375 *98020 Tinton 3,259 60 5,160 75 1,905 15 'Warrick”::::::::::::::::::::: i’.owei 6,05550 7,15314 Washington 1 43 33 5,190 25 5,041 92 Wells 5,994 55 5,601 00 *392 40 White' 7,120 57 4,065 75 *3,054 82 whiteiy:::::::: 3*1 25 4,34325 4,10200 Totals ! $22,529 37 £K.<WS 18 $264,269 92 $151,764 11 Net decrease local tuition tax ■ • • • $H 2 ,505 81 _ tFloyd county in 1890 levied only $80.67. In 1891, $l6B, tPerry county levied no local tuition tax in either 1890 or 1891, Republican Counties. r i i I I i l P ft * it it* • t* oi a * • s | 't counties. : g • 8 g-2 t): | i : -I 3:8. :g : t f P: :fifi I j : | Benton $5,511 15 $3,138 75 *8,64$ 90 Boone 5,373 00 6,882 00 1,509 00 Clinton 1,257 97 6,750 00 5,491 00 Daviess 2,209 39 7,542 00 5,272 61 Decatur 722 01 5,087 25 5,809 26 Delaware 6,386 82 7,420 50 13,807 32 Elkhart ' 1,571 17 9,585 75 8,014 58 Fayette 98 69 2,948 ‘25 2,849 57 Fountain ~ 2,346 23 5,365 50 7,711 73 Gibson 4 ,042 36 6,003 00 2,560 64 Grant 3,465 18 8,466 75 11,932 43 Greene 904 13 6,600 00 7,504 13 Hamilton 1,949 55 6,761 25 4,811 70 Hendricks 5,832 21 5,318 25 11,150 46 Henry 3,558 77 5,392 00 8,950 77 Howard 1,903 37 6,837 00 4,933 63 Huntington 3,795 88 6,573 20 10,369 08 Jasper 6,281 04 2,894 25 9,175 29 Jay 2,507 86 5,985 75 8,413 61 Jefferson 615 69 7,2143 00 6,617 31 Jennings 1,092 10 4,438 50 5,530 60 Kosciuseo 1,407 16 6,975 00 8,382 16 LaGrange 514 23 3,688 50 3,174 27 Lake 4,210 67 5,874 75 10,085 42 Lawrence 2,720 03 2,608 25 5,328 28 Monrdfe 1,284 83 4,548 75 5,833 58 Montgomery 4,766,75 8,637 75 3,871 00 Morgan 1.602 31 4,791 00 3,188 69 Newton 2,749 74 2,239 50 4,989 24 Noble 1,977 58 5,457 00 7,434 58 Ohio 817 62 1,245 70 1,663 38 •Parke f 5,705 73 4,893 00 $Bl2 73 Porter 4,882 59 3,551 00 8,433 59 Randolph 4,825 46 6,706 50 11,531 96 Bush 4,514 55 4,466 75 8,981 30 Spencer 2,660 04 6,526 50 3,866 46 Steuben 154 67 3,615 75 3,461 08 Tippecanoe 661 08 10,691 25 10,040 17 Union 2,691 88 1,539 75 4,230 83 Vanderburgh 7.072 88 14,841 00 7,568 12 Vermillion 6,659 42 3,482 00 10,001 42 Vigo 2,112 30 16,382 25 18,494 45 Wabash 4,116 69 7,295 25 11,411 94 Warren 5,354 82 2,596 75 7,911 57 Wayne 1.723 01 9,905 25 11,628 26 Totals $94,744 19 $42,210 79 $874,067 40 $326,590 80 Net increase local tuition tax.. 52,533 40 _ ) SNet decrease total school revenues.

The enormous Increase made by this board entities it to stand alone—distinguished from all the state by its outrageous imposition «n the people. It increased the city school taxes of Indianapolis the sun of ' $113,01486,. notwithstanding the city receives about $32,000 more tram the state than it did last year. It will be seen by the tables that eleven Democratic counties show increases of local tuition taxes and thirtyfive show decreases. The increases in the eleven counties amount altogether to $22,520.37, and the decreases in the other counties amount to $136,035.18,

malftng a net decrease in the Democratic counties of $112,505.81. This excepts the city of Indianapolis, but includes all other increases by Republicans in Democratic counties. creased revenue distributed to these counties by the state, on the state superintendents estimate, will he $264,269.92, so that these forty-six counties will have $161,764.11 more of tuition money than they had last year, notwithstanding the decreases made. On the other hand, of the forty-six Republican counties only seventeen have decreased their local tuition taxes, and twenty-nine have increased them. Tbs

total increases amount to $94,744.19, and the total decreases to $42,210.79, making a net increase of local tuition taxes of $52,538.40. But the school money distributed to these counties by the state will be $274,057.30 greater than last year, and therefore the local taxes should have been decreased to that extent. These counties will have $326,690.80 more revenue for tuition than last year, and unless there was some special reason for increase in particular cases there is just that much unnecessary increase of taxes on the people of those counties for that purpose. It should be borne in mind that tuition money is used only for paying teachers. All other school expensed are paid out of the special school taxes. It will be noticed also that in only six counties—five Democratic and one Republican—have the local school taxes been decreased so that there will be less school revenue than last year, and in none of these, except possibly White county, is the decrease of any material amount.

On the whole showing it is clearly apparent that Democratic officials have acted in the interest of the people, while Republican officials have been trying to make the new tax law obnoxious to the people. The evidences of that conspiracy multiply daily. The question that the people of Indiana are now confronted with is, “What are you going to do with these Republican local officials who have increased your local taxes over $1,500,000, in order to make yon believe that you were oppressed by ttie new tax law V” What sort of opinion did they have of your intelligence ? What was their object in trying to discredit a law that increased the taxes of corporations in Indiana over $1,250,000, and made them, for the first time in iiie history of the state, pay their just share of taxes? These are questions that should be carefully considered.