The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1881-04-19

tenn. AZ continued for years under our first Dem
ocratic administration, there was created any
bonded debt whatever"
No one said there was; but the mistake here
made is in assuming as . fact that which never
did exist There was no scrip system under our
first Democratic administration such as has
since cursed Florida, or under any administra-
ton before the war Comptroller's warrants in
those DAYS were not receivable for taxes or
any public dues They were simply drafts upon
the State Treasurer who paid them If in funds
and if not in funds he gave certificates TO the
holders in xchange, which certificates were paid
according 10 their several numbers-( Acts OF July
and December, 1645) These certificates were
never below par, and after 1916 there was gen.
erally money enough in the treasury to redeem
them on presentation In his report of Novem-
Der 1, 1S47, the Treasurer reports a cash balance
on hand of IS, 1855 10 and in the following year
the balance is given at &, S2S.10 There was
never any necessity to fund scrip in bonds I'M
der our first Democratic administration" for the
reason that the fnanciers of 1si7 took care TO
provide means for paying expenses as they went
along But suppose that from extravaganza or
been created-how uoes ,ne ,a.;'.r debit had
inc the difficulty would have been met: Would
The debt ha We been repudiated, scaled funded,
or tax lev led 10 pay it? But whatever course
=" the fathers might have pursued, modern ex-
perience has taught us that superabundance of
scrip leads to bonds and increased taxation. In
1872, $4,000 of 2 per cent. bonds were issued
to take up that amount of outstanding scrip and
the people are paying sum in interest annually
sufficient to amount to $735, 900 for the 30 years
they have to ruiz So much for the scrip sys-
TEN" the Economist has no word of protest
against.
2. The Economist by its frequent references 10
the legislative printing of the late session ap
pears to be under the impression that the editor
Of the FLoRIDIAN was State Printer This is
another mistake; he was only the employee of
the gentlemen elected in 1879 whose term of
Office did not expire until the close of the session
The comparison that paper institutes between
the cost of printing in 1S47 with the cost in 1881
is misleading. To understand the difference the
changed circumstances must be considered The
Legislature of 1S47 consisted of 63 members and
sat from November % 10 January As days
the Legislature Of 1891 was made up of 1Oo
members and was in session 60 days The I4egis-
lature in 1S47 appropriated 50, 1913 mot $1117-
06 as the Economist puts III for printing, bu, The
quantity Of printing done was no, one-ienlh as
much as was done in 1881 The journals Of
either house in 1847 including appendix &C.,
were less than tie documents which accompany
the Governors message now days Furthermore,
the prices paid now are kS in comparison than
were paid in 1S47. In that year the printer got
81 page for 500 copies of the pamphlet journals,
while in 1881 he received S. cents page for 300
copies Another fact is that for miscellaneous
printing, "such as bills reports, &c. we quote
the words of the contract-tde rate ttas prec.Se(y
tie same III 1877 for the same kind OF printing as
was paid in 1881 These facts show that our
contemporary knows very little of the subject
about which it undertakes 10 enlighten the pub
lic-just enough to enable it TO try to mi}lead.
A further fact is that the Legislative printing
gradually increased in cost before the war. In
1858, 9th General Assembly, the cost was So
1922. In fact we do not hesitate to say that,
all things considered, The cost j. less in proper
ton TO the State now than it was in the old days
while 10 the printer the cost is greater Paper,
labor living, everything, Is from % to % per
cent. more now than il was then. Formerly
good comEositor could be employed during
session for $40 10 $12 a week, while they aver
age now from flS TO $25, and paper is at least
25 per cent higher than in ls47 The difference
in the cost to the State is not in the prices paid
by it, as we have shown, but in the quantity
dene, for which of course the printer is not re-
sponsible II may be added that The cost since
the Democrats have been in control has teen
vastly less than when the Radicals were in rover.
The average cost for the sessions of 1879 and
1881 was $12, 624 "a and the average for the ses-
sions Of 1874 and 1875 was $22, 1913 &c. or $1O,-
308.92 per session more than the cost now, while
the quantity of printing done in ~ and Is was
fully third less than was done in - and 'Sl.
g.. One other mistake of the Ec0n0masf is in
supposing, as it appears to do, that the editor of
the FLoRTDIAS had anything TO do with the pre-
paration Of Governor Drew's /" first message" or
any other message sent in by him or any other
Governor We never saw or read il until it was
ordered printed by the Legislature Whatever
Governor Drew's views may have been when he
sent in that message on the subject Of taxes, it
is very certain that before the Legislature of
1877 adjourned he favored a reduction, for it is
a known fact that when the Legislature failed to
agree on the rate Of reduction, the Governor
consulted with Senators and Representa- les on
the advisabilhy of at once converting an extra
session in order to secure lessening in the rate,
but was advised that in the then temper Of the
tive houses nothing would be accomplished by
such a move. AS to the FLoRIDIAN il was not
only in favor of reduction, but its editor, we
believe, was the first to advise, when the Legis-
lature failed in its duty, that the Governor should
take the responsibility and Suspend the collection
Of portion of the taxes of 1877 and 1873 as
was done, TO the relief of the people to the ex-
tent of some 100000
Referring TO the legislation Of 1877 the Econo-
mist says
when Republican member of the Legisla-
ture introduced bill Ie-enacting or giving val
idity 10 the Radical tax law, which the Demo
Gratis, when out of power, had so violently
denounced, the FLoRIDIAN made no objection,
andsthe bill-the first one passed under Drew's
ministration-received his approval The
FLORIDIAN very well knows how earnestly the
editor Of this paper opposed the continuation of
the monstrous Radical taxation by Governor
Drew's administration and with what result and
with what consequences TO him personally"
This refers to the act legalizing the tax assess
ment of 1875. the passage of which was absolutely
necessary to pay the expenses of that year,
which amounted with the floating debt TO some
$500. 900 But for its passage the State would
have been in inextricable financial coniusion.-
We ram, her Iof tho ad;tor ~ liz