The Morristown gazette. [volume] (Morristown, Tenn.) 1867-1920, 1876-05-31
HAWKINS COUNTY FINANCES
How the People have been Mis-
ledAA Reviewer Reviewed:


TO Mr.. w. Gillenwaters' review o
my explanation of the condition o
our county finances, which appeareC
in the GAZETTE of the 26th ult.
In that article, Mr.. Gillenwater:
says he regards my explanation a:
an attempt made in the light o
facts and figures to pervert the trutl
and mIslead the people"
Without going into an exhaustive
and elaborate review of this whole
subject, which has already consumed
too much of your valuable space,
only design in this paper to refute
the charge of perUeTting the truth, and
to prove that Mr.. Gillenwaters, and
not myself, has been guilty of an at
tempt to mislead, mystify and con
fuse the judgment of the public.
To understand how this is, let us
see clearly what were the points al
issue between US in the outset of our
discussion of this question. ..
In his first paper, Mr.. Gillenwa.
ters maintained that there ought now
to be in the county treasury a net
balance of about $4,000 of railroad
taGes, after allowing for the payment
of the entire interest on our railroad
bonded indebtedness since the war.
In my article, in your paper of April
18th, denied this and insisted that
there ought to be only a net balance
of $3,347. IL. railroad taGes. in the
1910
The issue, then, clearly joined be-
tween us was as to tie balance of
railroad taGes that should now be in
the county treasury the whole con-
troversy being over the management
by our agents of county finances
with respect to the railroad tax.
Instead of confning himself to
the issue involved, in his review of
my explanation, Mr.. G. took "a new
departure and Jagged into the dis
cussion calculations covering the en-
tire management Of the county tax
proper since the war, which had no.
thing in the world to do with our
controversy over the railroad taxes.
For, as he says, "there is one fact
known to every tax payer in Hawk
ins county, that the County Court
levies a tax for county purposes,
which is the county tax proper, to
meet the current expenses of the
county and also levies railroad tax
to pay interest on the railroad debt
of the county. These two taxes are
levied separately, kept separate on
the tax books, and the railroad tax
is collected separately from the coun-
ty tax proper, and as the people we'll
know the railroad tax is payable in
money and cannot be paid in county
warrants" AS the county tax, there
fore, was an entirely different thing
from the railroad tax, it did not log
ically enter into the discussion of
the management of the railroad tax /;
and Mr.. Gillenwaters had no busi-
ness to introduce it as q factor in his
calculations. t. e.s
But finding my explanation unan-
swerable, from facts and figures
which were pertinent to the issue be-
tween US, Mr.. g., with the LAWYERS
trick and tack, introduced the coun-
ty tax proper as an telement in the
calculation and sought to mislead,
confuse and mystify the public by
long and studied array of figures.
which were entirely foreign to the
subject matter of discussion. By
eliminating the county tax proper
from the calculation, which, is mat
ter of fact, has never been applied
to the paymento of the interest on the
railroad debt, as Mr.. g. does apply
it, in reaching the result arrived at
in review-it will be found upon
careful investigation that my former
article contains true exposition of
the collection and disbursement of
the railroad tax. since 1867, and the
true net balance remaining in favor
of the county on the 1st day of jan
uary, 1876.
1 notice another error by which
Mr.. Gillenwaters seeks to mislead.
lie says that the $4,000 turnpike
bonds and the $4,000 bonds issued
by the Court to fund county warrants
are no part of the railroad debt of
the county and the railroad tax ought
not to have been applied TO the pay
ment of the interest on this indebt-.
edness." He treats this indebted
ness ($7.600) throughout as no part
of the railroad Indebtedness; and
ignores the interest thereon for nine
years in summing up the interest on
railroad bonded Indebtedness. While
these bonds were not issued in aid of
the Rogersville and Jefferson rail
road, yet they have been regarded
and treated by the County Court as
a part of the railroad tax indebted
ness. ~ -
The railroad tax has been levied
all along for the purpose of paying
the interest on these bonds as well
as the railroad bonds proper. No
was made between them.
And the railroad tax has been appli-
ed to the payment of the interest on
these bonds Except perhaps for the
last two years. as well as of The 9TH
ers,. So that, while ia theory these
bonds are not strictly part Of the
indebtedness properly so
called, yet as matter Of fact they
have ever so been treated and the
interest ON them paid, like the inter-
est on the other bonds. @ fI
I so treated them in my explana- /
ion, as / was bound to do. in deal. /
ng with facts and figures. Dir. Gil
ignores them as part of /
he railroad debt and is consequent
y misled and misieads.