The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1875-10-08
Auditor Humphrevs ona the Tao Levy.

The American Israelfte of to-day has an in
teresting interview with Auditor Humphreys
on the Cincinnati tax levy, as given by home
correspondent Of that paper. He says:
The City Council of Cincinnati, few week
ago, certified to the Auditor two ordinances.
one for sixteen and the other for four mills. Or
dering the same to be placed upon the dupli-
cate for corporation purposes. The Auditor
declined placing this aggregate levy Of twenty
mills upon the duplicate, for the reason that 1t
is in direct violation Of the statu law OF the
State, as will appear by the following:
In volume SO, Of the Laws OF Onio, section
gate of all taxes levied or ordered by any cor
poratlOn, including the levy for general pur-
poses, over and above the tax Tor County ana
State purposes, and excluding the tax Tor
schools and school house purposes, shall not
exceed In any one year, in cities Of the first
class, having a population OF one hundred and
fifty thousand inhabitants, and more, sixteen
mills"
Herein consists the essence of the Auditors
refusal to place said levy OF twenty mills upon
the duplicate, because it is In direct violation
of the provisions Of the law just quoted, which
has never been repealed, but Is still In full
force and effect. That there should be limit
fixed 10 the authority OF Council in orlering a
tax levy, 40 intelligent man will doubt; other.
wise we would lapse into sy stem of unbridled
license, and Council could order levy Of forty
mills for corporation purposes with the same
propriety that they have ordered twenty: in
fact, it is fair to suppose that they could in
vove Taxpayers Of city to any extent they
saw proper.
But, Mr. Humphreys, the Council sent you
two ordinances, one for sixteen mills and the
other for four mills, why don't you accept the
one for four mills ard reject the one for six
teen, or accept the one for sixteen mills, and
reject the one for four"
sSmply because the law does not give me
authority to select between two levies, or be-
tween the comrOnents Of levy. You can
readily see, that If had any SUCH authority,
it would make me judge, or, If you please, IN
autocrat; whereas the law makes the Auditor
ministerial officer solely 1t is made the du-
ty OF Council to order levy that is within the
statute limitations, and if Ghey go beyond that
limit. as in his case, it is for them to select
which levy shall be placed upon the dupil-
cate"
/ told the Auditor that many friends OF the
Southern Railroad were circulating the rep"it t
that he was hostile to that enterprise. :.
s.There is nothing further from the TRUTH"
he said with much feeling "l am warm
friend to the southern Railroad, and tu "
recognize the fact that provision should le
made whereby the interest on its bonds shall
be met. While recognizing this fact, l am
yet unwilling that ihc law should be yio-
/ can prevent it. Recollecti that l am
amenabe to the laws just as any private citi
zeo is, and I.feel that would be proper sub
ject for impeachment, and removal from office,
indeed, that would he violating my official
GA n If, as Auditor, consented to have placed
upon tile duplicate any tax levy that exceeded
the limitations fixed BY law"