The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1855-02-21

GEO. We MeC0Ok, Of Jefferson County.
-a7s ID yoa BoAxs oy RuHLle WORKS. --
81 n STEEDMAN, of Lucas County.
VsTuxaFiOn-State Purposes.
we have been not little amused, at the
tk6 Numbering Of the Democrat y upon the
subjects Of State and Local Taxation. Its
Edit6r severs1 weeks since, charged the State
aAieets withSccrruption. To show the falsi-
ty of such charge, in the Sentinel of Janua-
ry24fh, we made an erhitEt of the taxes for
1853, and showed hoo the whole sum was
made up. The Democrat ~ then changed
III ground and admitted that the State Off
cefs were not TO blame, but charged it upon
the county officers in the following terms:
ave have, at last, by common consent,
found where to place it. The blame must
rest upon the County Commissioners aud
other county ofieers, who have ruled and
controlled the local affairs and local taxation
of this county for the last six years" .
In our, next issue, we entered upon an ex-
animation OF the local taxes; and from figures
taken from the official records, demonstrated
the fact, that Fusion counties throughout the
State were more heavily taxed, than Demo
cratic counties, and that in our ewn county,
those townships and villages, which were
ruled by, fuionists were more heavily taxed
than any others. We proved from the rec
otds in the Auditors Office, that in Ravsnna
village, which is governed exclusively by fu-
sionists, the tax was 3S cents on the hundred
dollars more than the average rate of taxa
ton in the county. None OF these facts are
denied by the Democrat, but on the contrary
they are all virtually admitted TO be true.
Driven from this refuge, its Editor now
falls back again on his old charge and says !:
rtThat the State Government is very
blame-worthy in this matter, we most con.
scientieusly believe" ...-.. .. ....,.
We now propose to make an analysis Of
the taxes for 1853: And at the outset we af-
firm that not single dollar has been ex-
pended by State officers unworthily; and we
challenge the Democrat to point out sim
gle instance, where such is the case. ....
The following figures we take from the
Democrat % Of Feb'y l4th: .....s ,
t1'he various amounts assessed on the Du-
plicats Of 1853, were as follows: ..
y.r State purposes 1-,s mills, ss,Oss,sss7a
s.s County, Township, Poor, Bridge.
Il end building S,OoI ,Ca ,2SS'sS 2S ~
=. School, and school House, .yooi.l SsaslI'so
&c other spIcial taxes 1lS0S3,16
Cities, Towns and Boroughs 934,l4907
=. Aslinquencies Of the preceding year, :
with forfeiture and penalty e96 1882
lilfoad taxes 246,lO48
,yjsTotai smount #-ea S7,S0l 1864
FROM the figures above given, we prove
eShclusiveiy that more than one half (and
consequently the great share of the burthen
oftaxstion) is for county, township poor.
bridge. road and other local purposes. Thus
from his own showing our neighbor has pro-
ven what we said to be true, to witt that the
local taxes constitute the heaviest part of the
burthens under which the people labor Are
the State officers responsible for these =
certainly not and no sane man would claim
any such thing. m4g
But in another partof his article, the De-
ssocrdi man has the following: ''s'2 ora
GThs reader will here notice, that instead
ofV59s, ,396, for the support Of the State 60
vsrnment,'' as the Sentinel speciously and
deceptiyely asserts, the people Of Ohio were
assessed FOR STATE PURPOSES, .fuc and one
tenth .s,tiHs on the dollar, amounting to 49,
O2Sxs6, or nearly one half Of the entire d
nisunt upon the duplicate" s@
uNow let US see hoo the $3,o22 2,5s6,72
which the Democrat claims as the tax "for
State purposes, is made up 1t is as fol.
lowg:sT -ea A,4 eH2 p. r.-fI.
For support Of State government, including y
Lesislatiys, Judicial, Executive Depart
Mfenss, Benevolent Institutions, New State ''-"
House. New Lunahc Asylum, and Peniten- - <.
Islsrsss and principal on Public Debt, i,la6,7g
Cownon School purposes, 1926, ID
ii tS~c3@fa -Hfs ~ q. H"0t Ea.3 .------
80. Total, ..i .;-,t. S3,es9,5 So
Here. are the figures, and every man car
sss for, himself, that the taxes "for the sup
port ofahe State government" are as w
6st asserted, enly $685., 1896: and yet tht
Dsmoerst % has the hardihood to state tina
We intend to dsceiue, by making such asser
tionss Why did he not have the manlines
Il come. out and show hOao. this sum of owe
three millions, was made up
The sum iof 1,1s6,793 which goes to pa
thsintsFsss and principal on the public deb
iaGnsspart Of the current expenses for tn
sappertDf the State government; neither
TIM sahiaof el,24e,iS3, which 10 expende
fottAsehpol purposes. And now we agai
enquire, and we challenge the Democrat
show wherein, a.single dollar has been in
propeTly expended by the Stats officers
Ass they ingfanlt, because the benevolent in
siitations @sto be supported,--the Lunati
Asylams and State House to be built +
C6ftsisly NOS Are they to blame for tn
publI6 debt or the interest thereon! Ne.-
It-masisseatsd many years before they cam
inse ofiee, and.thsyare compelled by the cor
stItatioa 90 ply the interest and part of III
p1nsipalysariy This must n done, or tn
Stats must Isp6dists her debts h the d
nsaat i favor II spudiatieni Again