Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 41, Number 3, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 18 September 1908 — ADMINISTRATION OF STATE FINANCES [ARTICLE]

ADMINISTRATION OF STATE FINANCES

Ip James KL Watson’s keynote speech at Fort Wayne he completely an -ewers Democratic charges of Republican extravagance in our state expend! tures. On this subject he said: . . ■ f , .. i In what respect has the Republican party of Indiana, during the past twelvs years, failed to' meet the demands made upon it by the people? Governor Mount’s administration was business-like and sensible; Governor Durbin’s practical, econt.mical and forceful; Governor Han y's able, fearless, and purand under them all our state has grown and prospered In all the essentials of greatness. Standing in the midst of its achievements for this period, and under their leadership, it can safely challenge comparison with any like period of our history as a state, for along all lines, its policies have proved eminently successful. Whenever the Democratic party has been in power It has Increased the public debt. Whenever the Republican p-'ty has been In power it has decreased that debt. The Democratic party is a debt-creating and a bond-issuing party and the Republican party is always compelled to shoulder the burdens imposed upon it by Democracy. In 1861 our pqrty Inherited a debt of $10,179,000; it controlled ten years; it left a debt of $4,167,000, and this in the midst of the stress, turmoil and expense of war. The next ten years were’under Democratic leadership. The invariable thing happened. The debt was Increased $830,000. In 1881 and 1882 Ge Republican party controlled, and dur-. Ing that time reduced the state debt $121,000. From that time to 1890, while' all the states In the Union but five were decreasing their indebtedness, the Democratic party in Indiana added $4,000,000 to our public debt and left it at $7,520,000, which was the amount our state owed when Governor Mount assumed the executive function. Since that time It has been the policy of the party to pay that debt, and today it stands at $805,000, the lowest figure in a half century of the state’s history. Every dollar of It has been paid that can be paid, because no more is due until 1910. It is worthy of note that In the meantime the annual interest charge has decreased from $243,725 to less than $50,000, and there is no doubt but that, should the next administration be Republican it will see the total payment of the debt laid upon us by an incompetent Democracy. Thus it will be seen that the state debt has been reduced more than $6,500,.000 In eleven years of Republican control, and at the same time it is true that the total state tax levied averaged 15 per cent less during the present period of Republican control than during the last period of Democratic control, and yet the annual payments 6n the state debt from the general fund have been nearly three times larger than during the Democratic period. Fails to Read Reports. ~ (n . “1 #lll be pardoned, ’ said Mr. Marshall, “if In my ignorance I Inquire how ft comes that the total expenditures for the fiscal year ending Oct sl, 1894,. being the last statement published under the administration of Governor Matthews, shows an expenditure in round numbers of $6,458,000, while the expenditures as shown fpr the fiscal years, ending Oct. 31, 1906, being the last published report in the acts under the administration of Governor Hanly, shows a disbursement of $9,099,000. Where has the money gone? Who has gotten it? More than $2,600,000 was expended in the state of Indiana from 1905 to 1906 than there was from 1893 to 1894.” It may be first remarked that Governor Matthews did not go out of office tn 1895, but in 1897, so that the report covering the fiscal year ending Oct 31, 1896, and not that for the fiscal year ending Oct. 31, 1894, was the last covering the period of his administration.

But what is more remarkable in view of the exhaustive statements of receipts and expenditures made in 1894, Is the fact that Mr. Marshall erroneously included in his aggregate of expenditures for that year sums amounting to more than one million dollars. In that amount are several items which even a casual examination of the report for the fiscal year ending Oct sl, 1894, will show are not expenditures of the state and should not be so treated. 1 Among such Items is one of $662,319.54 that was merely transferred from the benevolent institution fund to the general fund, but was not paid out by the state in that item, and to Include it in the expenditures would duplicate them to that amount. There is also an amount of $221,525 that was erroneously included In the statement of expenditures by my opponent. That Item covered the state revenues advanced by the counties, and was a repayment of those advancements. ' ‘

This practice is generally understood, but may be briefly explained here. Under the law the state may call for advancements from the counties before the settlement periods, and when received they are charged to the general fund. When counties make settlement with the state, such amounts as have been advanced are returned by state warrants to the county treasurers, in order that they may pay In at one time the full amounts owing the state as shown by their settlement sheets and in order that such amount may be distributed to the several funds where they rightly belong. As will be readily seen these repayments of advancements of the counties are made for the convenience of bookkeeping and are in no sense state expenditures. Marshall's Erroneous Statements Are Shown.

Mr. Marshall erroneously includes as expenditures $23,015 which was a loan made from the college fund, and $104,250 aggregating loans made from the permanent endowment fund of Indiana University. .An amount of $2,213.36 was treated as an expenditure by the Democratic candidate for governor which represented the total disbursements from unclaimed estates, In which transactions the state acts merely as an agent; $5,000 was transferred from the university and college lands funds to the college fund and is counted an expenditure of the state. In the report Is an amount of $10,002.29, which it is stated in the report covers funds undisturbed during the year, and this Is regarded an expenditure by Mr. Marshall. Among the items disbursed was school revenue of $2,610,297.30, which was merely reapportioned to the counties and, therefore, not an expenditure of the state.

My opponent has fallen into similar mistakes in his discussion of expenditures for the year 1906, and it is evident that he has wholly failed to make comparisons upon a proper basis for an intelligent understanding of state disbursements for the two years mentioned by him. A better understanding may be bad by an examination of the items of expenditures included in the general fund, for the two years under consideration, as the economy or extravagance of state administration is disclosed in the items composing the general fund disbursements.

The reports show the total disbursements from the general fund for the fiscal year ending Oct. 31, 1894, as $2,787,267.25, from which there should be deducted $221,525, which was a repayment of advancements from counties, thus leaving $2,565,742.25 as the net expenditures from that fund. For the fiscal year ending Oct. 31, 1906, there were disbursements from the general fund aggregating $5,045,537.91, from which there should V® deducted $1,245,500 repayment of advancements from counties, also a loan from the deaf and dumb fund of $50,508.32 and an amount of $32,016.96 transferred from the general fund to the special school fund, which were in fio sense expenditures, leaving $3,717,512.62. Thus it appears that the expenditures from the general fund were $1,151,770.37 greater forthe yeaf'l9o6 ffian lor 1194.

In the language of Mr. Marshall “Where has the money gone?” “Who has gotten it?” An examination of the report clearly answers, those questiens. During the year 1906 there were many needed Improvements, additions and new buildings constructed that have increased the capacity and efficiency of our state institutions, educational, correctional and benevolent. Among these were an engineering building at Purdue, $40,000; a library building at Indiana University, $50,000; an addition to the Southeastern Insane Asylum, $52,000; new cottages at the Northern Hospital for the Insane, $40,000; for the Institution for Deaf and Dumb, $30,000; a custodial building for boys at School for Feeble Minded, $25,000; the purchase of lands for the Epileptic Hospital, $134,000; a heating plant and a widows’ home at the State Soldiers’ Home, $60,000; extensions and additions at the State Prison, $130,000; an earnings trade sohool at Reformatory, $28,000; for the Industrial School for Girls, $155,000; whioh, together with other expenditures at the various state institutions make a total of $997,003.96 for construction and permanent improvements for 1906. Expenditure* Necessary but Never Extravagant. Does my opponent contend these expenditures were unnecessary, or If necessary, extravagant? Is he so familiar witfi conditions and needs of the several state institutions as to justify his criticism of the recommendations of the various superintendents and boards of trwtees of those institutions? His statement with particularity on these matters may be of service to the citizens of our state. ;

In 1894 there were expenditures for construction and permanent Improvements of $143,882.49. Thus it will be seen that the expenditure for 1894 for items other than new state buildings and permanent additions to the property of the state out of the general fond, aggregated $2,421,859.76, and for 1906 them was expended for the same items $2,720,508.66, or $298,648.90 more HF-1906 than In 1894. The increase of expenditures for 1906 was only 12ft per cent over that of 1894, while the population of our state for that period Increased nearly 20 per cent. In other words, the cost per capita in 1894 under Democratic economy was $1.07, while Republican extravagance cost each individual In our state less than $1 in 1906. It is important and Interesting in this connection to inquire the sources of income from which the state secured the money so expended and to determine if we may the amount collected by taxation from the people of our state. nl 1894 under Democratic law the state officials retained large amounts from fees collected and these it should be remembered are not inotuded in the expenditures of the state, although they should be so regarded. Under Republican legislation the fee system has been abolished for state officials and now the state o Ices, departments and state institutions contribute tees, charges and earnings In largely Increased amounts to the state treasury