Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 36, Number 112, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 23 September 1904 — DEBT DESTROYERS [ARTICLE]

DEBT DESTROYERS

What Republican Administration Has Accomplishedin This Line. I DURBIN ON FISCAL MANAGEMENT Compare* the Record of Republican and Democratic Leadership and Proves Conclusively That a Vote for Republican State and Legislative , Candidates Is a Vote Against the State Debt In a speech delivered at Anderson on Sept 17th Governor Durbin reviewed at length the fiscal record of the present period of Republican administration and said, on the subject of the state debt, in part: We have been told that it was "hypocritical” to claim in behalf of Republican officials that they have rapidly reduced the debt, because, forsooth, the money with which this has been done “comes from a Democratic tax law.” My Information la that this money comes from the people, the taxpayers of the state. It is not a matter of particular difficulty to raise money in a state like In.diana by the process of taxation. the people are most interested in is how this money Is expended when once it been collected. It is true that the present tax law provides that the revenues derived from the sinking fund tax must be applied toward the extinction of the state debt, but Republican officials have by no means stopped at that They have applied every dollar that could be made available from any source toward the reduction of the state debt. And there has been no provision in law to prevent them from repeating the performance of Democratic leadership during the years between 1882 and 1889, when they Increased public expenditure more rapidly than public revenues and added the difference to the debt. The people would profit little from a reduction of the state debt at one end if it were being steadily built up at the other. But by the application of honesty and efficiency to the public service no necessity of this sort has arisen. Although the state tax levy has been reduced, large amounts have been diverted from the general fund toward the reduction of the debt, until It Is now certain that it will be the privilege of Governor Hanly, early In hi* administration, to wipe out the last payable dollar of that obligation. Which Is about all the people of Indiana have left to remind them that ghere ever was a time when Demogatic leadership was in control of the eat business affairs of this state. Fact* From th* Record. * I am giad that the Democratic state platform h&s called attention to the comparative repords of Republican and Democratic official* in dealing with the state debt, and particularly that It has mentioned a payment by the general government to the treasury of Indiana which was applied on the state debt In 1902, for there was another tfhyment by the general government into the treasury of Indiana eleven -Wear* before, and the policy pursued by a Democratic finance board in that connection Is illustrative of the methods in vogue in the statehouse In Indianapolis during the period immediately preceding the present period of Republican supremacy. During the Tour years from 1891 to 1895 —I am now dealing In figure* which I secure from .the official records of the state and not from the romantic statistics set forth in the Democratic state plat-’ form—with th* state revenues increased over those of the preceding Your years fully five million dollars In tjie aggregate, a Democratic finance board paid on the state debt In ill "ji,310,000- As this is about the only instance in the history of Indiana where a Democratic finance board ever paid anything on the state debt, th* circumstance Is worthy of special tut thete some peculiar incidents connected with the performance to which I desire to call your attention. In April, 1891, there was received from the general government in repayment of the direct war tax, >719,144.03, and in 1892 >3,876.99, an aggregate of >723,021.02. Now this Democratic finance board is not to be accused, as is the Republican finance board of eleven years later, of the high crime and misdemeanor of applying the full amount immediately upon the state debt. Their first bopd payment was March 8, 1893—two years after receiving the draft, and this payment was only >340,000; their lecond payment was made on March 31, 1894, three years after receiving the draft, >37.0,000—0n1y >710,000 of the government draft in all within three years. If they had applied this surplus sum upon the payment of the debt at once, as did the Republican finance committee in 1902 with the war claim draft received from the general government, there- would have been a saving to the state in interest of over $56,000. And it is a noteworthy fact that this same finance board held on to the >400,000, which Kded to this >710,000, makes up the m total of Democratic payments on th* state until within a week of th* time when the Democratic party was to release control of the fiscal and legislative affairs of the state. .What the Democat* Did.' Another showing: The Democratic finance board paid on the state debt la the four years a fcraft from th* U. 5....>723,0210J I Making fund tax >•>,170.26 ' General fund, 217,408.78 «r an average per year from the gen-

eral fuad of >54,352, on a tax averaging cents more on the >IOO for this fund than has prevailed during the Republican period, and with receipts in this fund during the years 1892, 1893 and 1894, averaging >1,449,487 annually, as against an average in this fund for the nine years succeeding of >l,338.176. In other words, the Democratic finance board had an advantage over succeeding Republican finance boards in funds available, of >111,311 annually. And besides, it must be remembered, we had at that time in control of state affairs, according to the Democratic state platform, officials who were opposed to “unnecessary and extravagant public expenditures,” while now an “extravagant and wasteful" administration is in power. Now, if in 1893, with the country on a hard -times basis, the people of Indiana paid into the fund from which are met the ‘Ordinary expenses of the state government >1,554,405, and in 1903, on a prosperity basis, with the cost of conducting private enterprises largely increased, according to our Democratic friends, they paid into this fund only $1,363,066, nearly >200,000, or more than 14 per cent less than was exacted form them for the same purpose ten years before, they ought to have been able to pay at least half a million dollars on the debt out of the general fund in that one year—or 250 per cent more thafn they paid in the whole four years. Comparing the Records. As a matter of fact, how does their record compare with ours? OwingJto the fact that the retiring Democratic finance board exhausted every available resource of the state in making a payment on the debt just on the eve of the accession of the Republican party to power in Jnauary, 1895, it was nine months before a Republican finance board was able to get into action on the state debt, and yet the total reduction in the state’s indebtedness since that date has been >5,618,000. The Republican reduction of the state debt will bear this analysis: From state debt*sinking fund.. ....>3,773,133 From current revenues. 1,844,867 a yearly average in funds from sources other than the state debt sinking fund sinoe January, 1895, of nearly >200,000. But if we subtract from this total the amount received from the general government in 1902 and promptly applied on the debt, we have a total of >1,209,000 diverted from the general fund toward the extinction of the debt, an average of >134,333 a year. The Democratic state platform credits us with an average payment from current funds of >161,257.52 a year, which is >27,000 a year too much, but the average actually maintained means that we have applied on the state debt from the revenues raised for the purpose of maintaining the ordinary machinery of government each year >79,801 more than did the Demoerats, although during the whole period we have annually collected into the general fund on an average >lll,311 less than did the Democrats during the last three years of their ascendancy, and during 1903 nearly >200,000 less was received than under Democratic management in 1893. If we had continued the same tax levy which prevailed under the Democratic regime and the valuation of property had remained the same, we would have received during our period of control more than a million dollars in excess of what has been collected under our reduced levy, and if the levy had remained stationary, with the valuation standing at the figures which hav* prevailed, we would have been able by this time not only to wipe out the state debt, but would have had a balance sufficient In Itself to build another state capitol. In order that you may be more fully Informed of the regularity and consistency characterizing the progress of our debt-paying policy, the following statement is submitted:

.- Redaction Total Debt. for Year. 1895.. >7,520,615.12.. 1896 6,920,615.12.. .>600,000 1897. •••••- C,2GG,6i5.i2... 720,006 1898.. 5,800,615.12... 400,000 1899 5,187,615.12... 613,000 1900 4,704,615.1<2. .. 483,000 1901 4,204,615.12... 500,000 1902 2,887,615.12.. 1,317,000 1903 2,437,615.12... 450,000 1904, Jul. 1.. 1,902,615.12... 535,000 Of this total payment of >5,618,000 on the state debt since 1895 >2,602,000 has been made slice the beginning of the present state administration, a redaction of the debt from January, 1901, to July, 1905, averaging >BOO,OOO a year. Of the total debt of less than >1,600,000 which will remain at the time of Mr. Hanly’ inauguration as governor, >484,000 represents a portion of the debt which is by law a continuing obligation, being Purdue and Indiana ■University 5 per cent bonds, the interest on which represents simply a part of the support which the state accords these institutions. The payable debt will be less than >1,100,000 at the close of this administration), ffnd a decade of Republican control of state affairs will have resulted in a total debt reduction of more than >6,000,000. We have been paying bonds due in 1909 and 1915, and the payments made on the debt under the next administration will havo to be confined to the discharge of obligations as a matter of fact not due for a decade. Despite the allegations of the Democratic platform I confidently declare the belief that there is no state in the Union where the burdens of taxation rest more lightly upon the people, where the public funds are disbursed under a stricter system of accountability, or where the tax-payer’s dollar brings so large a measure of actual return.