Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1873-05-21
u~urFinanclai Leslslatlsn.

SEpALrA. Mo-. kpril 26s rs,

i EDITOR ST. LOUIS Qft0lt Ss32 tks--
notice In your issue OF testtayHn
editorial entitled "Our Financial
Legialatiop, !, in which you sccsn dis
posed 10 rcnsure somebody for the
Improper method ot making appro-
priaitons, whiris was adopted By Tho
brcsrist Legislature, rs we'll as the
| bcmtcfatic purity generally. Tor ex.
| trayagance IA the amounts OF such
| apprtpfiattons, I desire TO correct
some iof Your MEASUREMENTS OF faeis.
and cxplain such items of tho aiiier-
emit appropriation bills as may, in my
judgement, require explanation, IN or
der 10 remove certain n,pressions in
regard to mcapacity In myself and
extravagasce in tho Legislature.
whictH seems 10 hare been your oh.
|iect fs create. .
You would create. tho oppression ssf'
the estimates of tho outgoing Audi.
tor wcru entirely ignored by the leg
islativo committees liz preparing their
appropriation bills. They were not
oniy relied on, but substantially
adopted, In every case Wherein
changes were not necessary pr aaris-
able by the knowledge of facts on tho
part of the co,nmittccs, which were
not known to the Auditor at the tiuie
such estimates were matte. And, as
a mcmber Of one oil those tiHalcc
committees, | find great pleasure in
commenting, in this public %T1aMGer,
the ieiort.of Gen. Draper, the rctir-
ing Auditor, MS awork of which be,
may well feel promo, anil Which sill
| well informed citizens OF the State
l S.,itN- s,t,Foesnf la, E%A Nfpfya u, ,yt,a,. a. tnkn
thar, al q consequence, .sthe astnic
Legislator entirely forgot the fourth
largest appropriatiop-tlEat fer asses
>it. amt collecting the revenues"
This statement is not, in any sense of
The word, true. 1t was not forgotten.
but purposcly omitted Tor the time
being, and the reasons fer its omis-
sion fully explained, by me, whom The
bill was being considered in The
House. 1t was omitted because, nj
that time, there WAS pending a bill
which proposed to change tac law re-
9airing the State TO pay one-half the
expense of assessing the revenue, so
rs TO require tho different counties in
the State TO ray, each for itself, the
| Whole amOnnt tor the assessment of
such county the friends or said bill
~conteudiag Tint such change would
induce 4 closer scrutiny into ti.c &c
counts of assessors, and thus save
thousands of dollars Annually anG
further, that as an net OF. jnsiire 10
counties having adopted thu :Fowh-
ship Organization Law," under the
provisions of which suc.i counties
paid the whole expense Of their as
scssment, it should become u law.
Had said bill become.a law, this sim
portsnt Item could have been re-
dnced $4,000 OF. $4,000 below The
estimate Of the Auditor, which wa
the amount finally appropriated, on
the failure OF the bill. This impor
liant item, then, wasproDerly no. APP.
proprtated until the result oflhc pro
posed legislation cilecting its atnnan.
should be known. If properly ,,i-
derstaDd your, objections, rl.cv arc as
follows; First, 10 the form of said
bill second, because all the ,iitinfent
items of appropriation were no.; in
cluded in one bill !; aud third, tho *
travagancc of the general Aggregate.
With reference to Your first eljtc-.
tion-the form of the bili-l wonid
say that, although you mny res;art.
this deviation fscm tl.c usual tvac-
ticc of running all tha liens of an
appropriation bill intoUne paraars ph
as Gan unwarranted Innovation etc,
there are very many Intelligent poo
pie in this State WHO can ha,d!y lis
cover that you are justified III this
condemnation Of Il bill, Simply be-
cause in its form the different de-
mands against the Treasury pf the
State are classified and arranged I'M ,
der such different captions us are aal-
cniated to effect convenience. aud u.
lhe same timo present to the pe;,p!e
OF the State a statement Of the diff
fcrent objects for which ]apprurria.
tons are made, prepared in such
manner rs to most readily attract
their attention and invite their sc.u-
tiny TO the several items thereof
but, sirce this objection is onlv TO the
Storm" and not tic substance, airl the
ohense which the bin gives in this
particular is only Il against taste,
| decline 10 discuss this difference
further. AS to tho second objection
that more than one appropriation
bill was passed, When one wouldhave
been better-l would ask you to con-
slider that, when the first bill was in
troduced and even passed, it was ut
tcriy impracticable TO make it en-
brace all tho items contained in the |
second bill, and for reasons Which |
will attempt now to show:
The first item in tho second bill
for assessing and collecting the rove
nue-was not included in first bill
for reasons already given; the second
item was not authorized BY any law
of the state until tho passage Of the
act of March "a. 1873, while the first
hill was approved January 10, 1873
the third and fourth items could not
have been included in the first bill,
because their amounts were impossi-
bic of entertainment until the date Of
adjournment should be fixed the |
fifth item was omitted froN the first
bill because it was hoped that lis
amount could be reduced, and, with
a view to investigating that matter,
before the introduction of the final
appropriation bill, the necessity for
the introduction Of which was then
fully recogniZcd; the sixthitem was
included in the first bill presented, |
but, not being understood was strick-
en- out by amendment in the SENATE :
The seventh item was not included,
because il was, then thought probable
that changes would be made in the
laws creating some of tho courts, to
the judges OF which the salaries were
payable, and which would lessen the
amount necessary to be appropriated;
the eighth item was supposed to be
provided for in the first bill i'm the
item Of State paper, printing blanks.
ETC.; the vouchers, for the payment of
which the ninth item was provided,
We're no in when the. first bill was
drawn, and could not be anticipatcd:
the tenth item had not been applied
for by. the Commissioner Of Perma-
nentS Seat Of Government ut the time
the FIRST bill was drawn, and since al
item OF the Deficiency bill, then pre-
pared, provided $394.5O for repairs of
Capitol, 1t was not known 10 be he
ccssary 10 provide further for such
Object; the eleventh and twelfth items
could not be estinlatcd until the PEN
itentiary committees, then engaged
in investigating the condition oftbat
institntion,l had finished their labors
and ascertained the amount of its in.
dcbtedncss, and determined ON n
policy. for its future management :
the thirteenth item was not called TO
the attention OF the committees until
the second bill was being prepared.
Ofitems contained in the second lis,
given III your article, only two orI
them, the first and second, could have