Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1877-09-06
THE COUNTY LEVY.
Tax Payer Replies to Commissioner
Barnaby...-MOre Facts and Queries.

Tax Payer Replies to Commissioner
Barnaby.---MoreF Facts and Queries.
To the Editor of the Republican:
again crave your indulgence to
furnish me space in your paper,
while 1 respond to the communion
ton of Commissioner Barnaby, and
make some further suggestions as an
humble TAX Payer" but I hope Mr..
b. will not become riled, for public
servants are always subject to this
scrutiny under our peculiar Repub-
fcan institutions, and the history Of
the last ten years shows that greater
men than he have been guilty OF
~crookedness" and thorough investi-
cation never harmed an honest man
yet His answer to tax payers" inqui-
ries may be summed up in about four
OF his logical deductions. 1st, the
levy Of 20 cents on 500, and 80 cents
on each poll, in all probability
judging from the past would be
needed. I'd, the 10 cents levy for pay.
ing bonds was made because the I'd,
installment Of this levy would not be
due until after the maturity OF the
bond interest. Sd, they have reduced
the county levy Is cents In two years
and made $4,000, for tax payers by
taking up the $1,000 bond due in 1880.
4th, he don't know but he may be
wasting his time in fighting a new
will. desire to examine the sever
al conclusions in their order:
LIST, would the levy OF 20 cents on
800, and so cents on leach poll be
needed, II so for what? Ifnotneeded
for current expenses then they had
no right to levy whatever other ne
cessities there might be for 1t outside
Of the public need. Mr.. B. says it
would be needed Judging from the
past" II I were to form my judg-
ment from the past, I should say it
was not necessary to take OF the
peoples money such sums in order
that there might be balance In the
treasury OF from $4,000 to $4,000
continually. Again such an accu-
mutation has strong tendency to
tempt the officer having it in charge
to indulge In some practices not In
his line OF ssufy. OF this amount be-
ing carried from year to year Mr.. B.
ought to know. Now I ask again
what was this 20 cents and 80 cents
levy made for? / find there was in the
treasury at time Of levy s16,945.
There was on the tax duplicate un-
collected, not delinquent $50. 45S. and
OF delinquent the sum Of SIC, 1897,
making total Of $79.A55. The pre-
vious year there had been collected
OF county revenue $13,352, out OF
So, $40, collected in all. In this ratio
$79, 455 would bring $40 900 or therea-
bouts. The expenses Of the preceding
year was 81, 945, being only $6.673 to
be made up for the year following,
would not this amount and much
more be collected from the uncollec-
ted duplicate? Then why levy ex-
cept to stceH the balance?
The property liable to be taxed
to s7,762, 900. This would
raise county revenue $l5,524, and
then on 1891 FOOLS which at so cents
each would raise $l,795. or total Of
SIT 1916, this would undoubtedly keep
the old balance of nearly $4,000 in
tact-with the collections from the
last year duplicate tax payer in
judging from the past would con-
clude 1t was needed to keep up the
balance only. As to Mr.. BIS second
logical conclusions for levying the 10
cents for payment of bonds. I hardly
know now to approach 1t. because
he says the I'd, installment would not
be due until after the maturity OF the
bond. This logic Is surely OF the
platonic school, which drawn to con-
illusions from the working Of the
mind entirely divorced from exter-
nal facts, now II either the 1st, or I'd,
installment was needed than the
force OF his logic will appear. I find
there was In the treasury June 1st,
1877, balance OF sinking fund 3d.
336, 70. on bond interest, $4,245 ,55, OF
building fund balance, $3,744,12, of
bridge fund balance, s3.370,06, of p.
X. & r r. s,cindIe balance. 81 .023, SO,
making total in the treasury OF
81, 1850, which In justice to the tax
payers should be turned over and
applied to payment of the bonds
when due. There was standing on
the duplicate uncollected belonging
to these funds about $1,000; and loss
than $1,000 would be required to pay
all the bonds, why then did you need
the LIST, or I'd, installment of your last
levy? Do you say you could not dis
turb the balance of these several
funds? There can be no doubt of
your authority to do this and no one
viii doubt the propriety OF II. Has
not the building fund, and P. ks r.
r. ssCindie fund lain idle long
enough? As to the bridge fund bal
ance as one tax payer thinks there
win be enough collected from the
duplicate to more than meet all the
requirements for building bridges Of
q pubic character. There has been
from ten to t,oenty thousand dollars
OF this fund safely guarded by the
treasurer for these many years of
hard times, and high taxes. 3D., Mr..
b. thinks he ought to have a medal
or pension for reducing the taxes In
two years IS cents and by grand
M ooufn0 Manila