The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1880-05-18

sbesson - aveasrd seiy eseeJe5sG nakiaE
digessscs y - sesyegnss - go ADk1A -
- Average Il ef1s.141.ss ysak II sSDss
The sassemens al or Onnge counly Rspahanns
fiesds. q damgned - eevsr he wAsse Dtnaa q
be useless exhibdsioe of nnancisi igssnnce
which aimple re6essnzs 10 tAe seeurds exposea
Ii Was doabtlns inssnded ~ polllieal eMecs, n
the line Of what MT. Bisbee woalN call aEEres
sive," and may perhaps not inapprOpsiaiely be
characterized - . campaign lie"
But how b Il with respect 10 Or.age county,
supposipg that the statement which we hare
seen ID false - 10 the whole STATE was intended
TO be restricted 10 that particular locality One
would have supposed that the authors q q resO-
luton which stated ~ fact that instead Of there
having been . reduction in taxafioe there has
been an increase, for this . The effect of It
would at least have examined the records 10 20
whether their alleged fact was really and truly
such or whether IL was ngment Of their own
imagining They did not, however, take This
precautiou, and it turns out that the resolution d
as reckless in statement with regard 70 Orange
county ~ it has been shown to be when applied
",
on examination, show that for the three years Of
1874, rs and '76, the annual average Of taxable
property was 500, SS1, and that there was a.
sessed thereon for State purposes an annual aver
age tax Of Eli 241 08, the aggregate for the three
years having been &S3. 1850. For the three
subsequent years C1S77, 70 and '79,) the annual
average Of taxable property has been 81 ,11S 664,
or $212473 more than for the three previous
years, and the annual average Of tax assessed on
the same was $1,000 or an average Of 81 .OS7
less than during the former period The aggre-
gate amount assessed for the three years men
toned was $30,e12 as against $SS, 723 for 1874,
rs and 70. being decrease of g III, while the
taxable property was nearly . quarter of Q mil
lion greater.
But we are net done with the Orange county
tax books. They show other things besides the
refutation they furnish of the ignorant state
ment Of Republican leaders. II Is q fact that the
increase in the valuation Of property in that
county year by year was greater under Repub-
lican rule than it has been since We find that
in 1874 the increased valuation over 1878 was
$93O13. In 1875 the increase over 1874 was
1927 500. and in 1876 it was $124, 561 over that
Of 1875. Thus in the three years there was an
increase of &345, 4S2. or an average of &115, 164
year, while the rate of taxation kept pace with
the increased valuation put upon property. Since
then this comparative increase has Diminished,
while the rate of taxation has decreased from IL
mills in 1875 to mills under Democratic ad-
minisration. 10 1877 the increase was $87 $50
over 1875, and in 1873 it was only $20,526 over
1877, while in 1879 there was a deeredse of a..
249 as compared with the previous year. Thus,
in the last three years there has been an increase
of only $164 129, as against $345 402 for the pre-
vious period, or 0rtr one hundred per cent
decrease as compared with the rapid advance 10
valuation in 1874, rs and '76. These statistics
are all the more interesting for the reason that
while they show continued prosperity for the
county they at the same time expose the himsy
falsehood in the resolution we are commenting
on. But this lie not all the tax books show Ia
looking through them curiosity led US to COM
pare the assessments in individual cases under
the former and present rule, and we naturally
searched for the names of the committee which
reported the resolution declaring the 80 called
reduction in taxation a subterfuge," supposing
Of course that the tax receipts which they sre
presumed to possess would tend TO bear ont their
statement in their own cases at least. The gen.
tlemen composing the committee were Jesse
Bumby, John Bent, J. C.. Eaton, E. w. Henck
and John r. Mizell. The examination, however,
has only resulted in disappointment Beginning
with 1874 and running down TO and including
1879, we find that one name is not on the tax
books at all, another is on for 1875, ~, 70 and
70, his tax State being respectively 500
$14.O0, $1O.40 $662 Here are two members of
the committee, one of whom pays no tax and is
consequently a grumbler without rhyme or
reason and the other has found the " so-called
reduction to be an agreeable reality, seeing that
his tax Of $2090 in 1875 has gotten down TO
$500 in 1879. OF the other three committee
men one paid tax of &1.43 in 1874, 81. 20 in rs
$3.50 in 76, nothing in ~. $500 in 1873, and
nothing in '79-and we believe he is the president
OF Railroad company at that Of the remain
ing two one is assessed $2022 in 1874, 1882 in
1875, $24.26 in 1875, $21.50 in 1877, &2435 in
1873, and 1852 in 1879 bis landed possessions
increasing from 1870 acres in 1874 up 10 ITO acres
in 1878 and $40 acres in 1879. The last of the
ilustrious five was assessed 90 IS in 1874, $23.42
in 1875, $2o.1s in 1875, $3.50 in 1877, $3.50 in
1878, and $1068 in 1879, the valuation of his
property in 1878 and 1879 being triHe less
than it was In 1875 and 1875, and the deerease
in his taxes during the same time being from rs
TO 80 per cent.
1t may be said that the going into particulars
and citing individual cases after this fashion is
taking 4" an under holt" but we submit that the
best way 10 enlghten ignorance and expose false
hood Is to state facts, for In instances like this
they are the best argumeat They simply over
whelm the committee and prove, without further
comment, the statement in their resolution to be
mere clap-trap, originating In ignorance and de-
signed 10 mislead and keep Others 10 ignorance
also
Hon. E. G. Cabcll, Of 81. Louis, formerly
member Of Congress from Florida, expresses