The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1875-02-05
ABOUT THE REDUCTION OF
TAXES.


reducing the present OneFons bur
den OF taxation. Relief in that
quarter is fully as essential to the
prosperity of the state and all the
people thereof, Is supplies Of bread
and beef and seed grain, and can az
lily be postponed. The authority
Of the state is yearly invoked to
foreclose a lien of three to six per
cent. upon all the property within
its borders, which may not be
shirked, and which is enforced by
heavy penalties. No matter how
well or i'll the people may have
Jared, the tax-gatherer presents the
same memorable alternative, and
the yearly contribution for the vari-
Gus governmental purposes is q
very large per cent. upon the capt.
tai invested-which is too often
wholly unproductive. The largest
proportion OF taxes result directly
from the action Of the people them.
selves AS city, school, township
and county taxes; and this fact has
been used, successfully, to ward OF
attempts at cutting down those
leyied for state purposes. Gov. o.
borne calls attention to the fact that
state taxes are only about one-sixth
the burden annually imposed and
says the reduction must be made on
local taxes. We admit that local
taxes ought to be reduced; but we
also claim that the state tax will
admit of substantial reduction, and
that the legislature ought to set the
example and then so far as possible
enforce it upon the municipalities
by appropriate legislation. Local
taxes, too, yield direct benefit to the
localities wherein they are expend-
ed. If bridge is built, even at an
extravagsnt price, each tax payer
gets some benefit directly in return,
and so of school and other like taxes.
As to state taxes it Is quite differ
emit. Lavish expenditure in that quar-
ter yields no return whatever to the
bulk of the people who pay them.
In fact the state taxes need reduc-
ton full as much as the local taxes.
Can 1t be done2 The Governor
says it cannot, if his militia is to be
paid the $4,000 he asks for. We
think 1t can, and have no especial
difidence in airing some of the
grounds of our opinion and stating
several directions in which increased
economy may profitably be practice
ed:
l. The legislative expenses may
be reduced 5000. Fewer employ
es will do the clerical work, the
session ought to be cut down at
least twenty days, bills for special
acts should not be printed, and in a
dozen different quarters little care
on the part Of members will dis
cover means of stopping leaks
which, in the aggregate will prove
worth saving. TIE application of
tho rules observed by business
men who earn before they spend,
will stop many an extravaganza.
2. The cost of the State printing
ought to be cut down one half.
That of the State of Indiana the
year in which the Printer stole $751;
600, only amounted to $41, OO0-and
yet an honest administration in
Kansas costs over 100000. OF
course the chief fault is not with the
Printer. Prices of composition
and press work are twenty-five per
cent. too high for the times the pa
per ought to be bought by the State
SO as to save u profit on that item
the session laws ought to be bound
Ia boards instead of leather. Iowa,
Ohio, and Wisconsin do not indulge
in the luxury of leather bound ses-
sion laws, and why should Kansas =?
But the greatest saving should be in
the work ordered to be done. There
should be limit upon all branches
of the Executive Department in the
matter of printing. 1t is, perhaps.
too bad to check Il fight of fancy on
the part of red tape representative,
but extra rhetoric should be at the
cost of the utterer. ALI the items
of printing should be under rigid
The Syllabi of the SUI
preme Court decisions ehould not
be published in q newspaper at all
or If at all, not more than once.
Why should the State furnish law
yers with information of 6 profess
sional character and not incur a like
for other people? The de-
cisions of the Court are part of the
law and should be published by the
State, but to publish the syllabi is
doing the same thing twice. Any
good newspaper at the capital
would be glad to publish as mat
ter of interest to its subscribers,
without charge; and why publish
three times? The law in regard to
the publishing of reports of the
Supreme Court decisions should be
80 amended as to prevent the pub
of the briefs of attorneys.
A plain statement of facts and the
opinion of the court is all that the
report should contain. This would
save one-third the cost of the report.
Won't some one look at a Massa-
chusetts Report, and see how SO
rich State as tho old Day State
saves by comparison with our vol.
umes padded with briefs { p twenty
pages in length? As rule no
law should take effect upon publ
cation in q newspaper. 1t is not
only expense for nothing but per-
nicious in other respects. Every
law should take effect only after
In the statute book
say 60 or 80 days after such publ
cation. Then people would have a
chance 10 know what the law was
before being called on to obey it,