Gallipolis journal. [volume] (Gallipolis, Ohio) 1837-1919, 1875-08-26

get full possession of more exten-
sive estate. The Democratic party
was on trial in Ohio during the years
'6S-69, and '74-75, and the people
were even more ready to applaud its
good than to condemn its bad per-
formance. And yet with every pos
sible indncem ntto act with justice,
honor, and economy. the record of
those two terms of Democratic sway
is, as l have shown in previous let
ters, marked by every circumstance
of expensive legislation, unjust and
| useless laws, augmented salaries and
increased taxation, and finally with
the crowning infamy of putting the
credit of the State in peril, and Sc
curing deficit of more than $780,
600 in q miserable attempt to cheat
the people by slightly cutting down
the general appropriation bill.
THE COUNTIES OF OHIO.
If their conduct in the State as a
whole has been thus reprehensible, it
has been, if possible, still worse in
the counties. AS every intelligent
citizen knows, the counties of Ohio
are pretty equally divided between
the two great political parties. Year
after year certain of these sub-divi-
sions give Democratic, and certain
others Republican majorities. A few
are close and doubtful, but in four
fifths of them it can always be told
in advance whether they will elect
Democratic or Republican Repre-
sentatives. In the counties the
Boards of Commissioners exercise
sort of legislative authority, and have
powerful control over the indus
try and substance of the people.
According to the political complex
ion of the county, these boards are
either Democratic or Republican;
and as they are not, like members of
the Legislature. chosen by districts,
but by the whole people of the coun-
ty, they are usually solid, politically,
either one way or the other.
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS IN THE
| COUNTIES.
Now we would naturally expect
| that the Democratic boards would be
in every sense cheaper and less ex-
trayagant than Republican boards.
The loud professions of economy
made by Democratic leaders, their
fierce denunciation of Republican ex-
travagance and corruption, their con-
slant appeals to the peoples wishes
for less expensive government, and
their unlimited promises in this di-
rection, would all lead us to expect
that wherever the experiment of un-
checked Democratic rule has hecn
tried, it would show happy result in
retrenchment. saving aud reform, and
that the contrast with Republican
sway under similar circumstances
would he most disadvantageUus to
the latter.
With these feelings, and with re-
! solve to present the figures and facts,
no matter which party might be in
jured, Your correspondent entered
upon the work of comparing the
sums paid for services to Boards OF
County Commissioners in the Re
publican and Democratic counties of
Ohio. Aware as l am of the usually
baseless nature of Democratic claims,
/ scarcely believed the cantrast would
prove very damaging to the Repnhli-
cans, but confess was wholly un-
prepared for the actual results, and
the almost uubroken uniformity with
which the figures arrayed themselves
against Democratic rule.
THE MODE OF CONTRAST,
In order to make the contrast L
have taken the eaunties by pairs, ex-
hibiting the sums paid to the County
), Commissioners in a Republican coun
ty, with those paid in a Democratic
county of about the same population.
For this purpose do not go back to
any remote year, but take last year
| (1874), the one nearest us, and the
one in which the Democratic profess
sions of economy were loudest and
} most vehement. / mistake if the
exhibition will not be as astonishing
to all the citizens of Ohio as myself,
and l invite to it their attention.
THE STORY ToLR BY THE ooUNTIEs IN
DETAIL.
Adams County (Dem.); popula-
3 ton, 20,750; amount paid County
= Commissioners in 1874, 1852 go
Morgan County (Rep.); population
2O,363; amount paid County Com
+ missioners, 1904 80, Excess in the
Democratic county, $4s;
r Allen County (Dem.); population
0 29,829; paid to Commissioners, 81,
a45 40. Athens County Rep. }; pop
e ulation, 23,76S; paid to Commission
= ers, 1886 20. Excess in the Demo
J. cratic county, $500 20.
d Ashland County (Dem.): popula
:, ton, 1888; paid Commissioners
: $I,3a9 30. Clinton County (Rep.
i population, 81 ,915, paid Commission
: ers 1901 go. Democratic excess
i $597 GO.
d Auglaize County (Dem.); popula
ton 2O,O4O; paid Commissioners ST.,
56S 16. Medina County (Rep.
B. population 2O,O92, paid Commission
=, ers, 1907 90. Democratic excess
n $500 Sc.
o Butler County (Dem.); popula
IS ton, 1892; paid Commissioners
-e $l,9S9 81. Belmont County Rep.
1t population, 39,7l5; paid Commission
IS ers, 1857 80, Democratic excess
1t $1,63l 81.
IT Brown County (Dem.); popula
ton, 3O,SO2; paid Commissioners
c. $1,2SS 70. Lorain County Rep.
lie population, 3O,3Os; paid Commission
o. ers, $1,000 As. Democratic excess
Is 1928 25.
le Clermont County dem. J; popula