Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 20, Number 3, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 September 1898 — AN ECONOMICAL ADMINISTRATION [ARTICLE]

AN ECONOMICAL ADMINISTRATION

A Statement Showing How the Taxpayers of Indiana Have Profited by Judicious Business Methods Under Directions of Republican Officials. There are three state offices that turn into the treasury of the people a large amount of fees, a great portion of which nnder Democratic rule and Democratic juggling went into the pockets of the ' officers themselves. Four years ago the people stopped the system of officials getting rich quickly by putting the Republicans in power. They said a reasonable compensation by straight salary, abont which there can be no twisting and turning of legal phraseology, is enough. That is now the law, and un- ! der it every cent of collections from J whatever souroe is paid into the state treasury, and the officers receive no more , than their salaries, which were fairly increased in a small degree to offset their deprivation of fees. Time and again the people asked Democratic legislatures to do this for them. However, j it was not until 1801 that they made ; anything like an attempt to enact a fee j and salary law, and that attempt was 1 one to do an apparent good that Democratic officials elected a few mouths before, bnt all of whom had not as yet gone into office, might get rich through the old way of retaining a large per cent J of collections for their own use and I benefit. The officers referred to in this connection are those %f secretary of state, auditor of state and attorney general. By Democratic favor at the expense of the taxpayer each got a small ealary and plenty of fees, by Republican justice each gets a reasonable salary and no possible chance to pocket 1 cent of fees. What is the result? The getting rid of an abuse that the people long groaned over, and by which men went into office poor or comparatively well-to-do and went out' of office with pockets full of the greenbacks that Republican officials are turning into the state treasury, where they Delong. There is nothing like comparison to reach the meat of a proposition that it is better to pay an offioial a good straight salary than to pay him a small salary with the privilege of appropriating a per cent on everything that permits the charging of a fee. When flash times prevailed in Democratic days for state officers the secretary of state’s salary was only $3,500. That is what the fee aud salary law enacted by a Democratic legislature said it should be, but it did better by that officer than the casnal reader knows. The law, after making a pretentious show of reforming au evil by saying that the fees aud amounts taxed iu the secretary of state’s office shall not belong to or be the property of that officer, but shall belong to and be the property of the state, comes down to business in making things right with the officer. It did it In this way, but the privilege occurred in a very obscure section and was likely to be overlooked by everyone except the secretary of state. A clause iu the section permited that offloer to retain for his services for making the prescribed collections 10 per oent, “and the same per cent upon all other fees and charges collected under this or any other law.” So the secretary of state had no oause to mourn the reform spirit that placed his salary at $3,500 and allowed him to collect a 10 per cent fee for his own profit on everything that came into his office. The same section applied t<J the auditor of state. This law was supposed to do away with the abuses of retaining fees under the old system, but just before it was enacted Democratic state officers had been elected. Democratic legislators did not think it right to subject them to sacrifice of a single penny they expected to get when they became candidates, so as far as the state offioers were concerned they tacked onto the law a section that the officers elected in 1890 “shall not be subject to the provisions of the act daring the time he holds his term of office” and, further, “he shall receive the compensation now prescribed by law the same as if this act had not beeu passed.” The secretary of state, auditor of state and attorney general of that time were thus richly endowed, and neither is now complaining of hard times. It was u good thing they had, but the Republicans wiped it out iu the interest of the tax payer. An example is given: The last year of his office the last Democratic attorney general was paid altogether $33,139, of which $2,600 was salary, the remainder being fees. That was a very close average of what he received each year of his two terms of four years, making in all about $182,556. When the Republican incumbent goes out of office iu November he will have received only his straight salary of $7,500 a year, or $30,000 in all, a difference in favor of Republican economy of more than 1 SIOO,OOO. The last Democratic secretary of state aud auditor of state had average yearly I compensations iu fees alone of about $12,000 and $25,000 respectively. When the Republican iucumbent of the latter ! office retires next January he will have I drawn from the state treasury SBO,OOO las four years' salary. He will not have made a dollar more out of the office. His Democratic predecessor got $119,000 jiu four years from fees and salary. There, too, is a big saving to the people of $86,000. The Republican secretars j of sfate will go out iu Jauuary, 1899. after u 4-vears’ service, with only his salary of $6,500 a year, or $26,000 in all, to compensate him, and the Democrat that was iu the office before him got out of l it altogether about $60,000, a suving br j the Republicans of $84,000. Summarised, $220,000 has been saved I to the state treasury through these office* in tees aud salaries. That < '• ,ie kind of government the Repubi . n* have given the people of Indiana.