The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1881-04-12


The increase was made with great reluctance,
and only after il had been demonstrated that the
rate imposed in 1879 and 1880 q Mills unless
the taxableresources of the State should mate
rally increase, would not meet the expenses,
and q resort to the scrip system" again become
q necessity with all its manifold evils in the
shape of scrip rings floating debt and Ultimate
issue of bonds TO absorb outstanding warrants,
or a heavy increase of taxation TO the same end.
The Legislature wisely concluded that 10 avert
this the people would prefer temporary small
increase trusting that the property return for the
future would enable the next Legislature to re
duce taxation 10 rate below that imposed for
the last two years. 9o5ldtdn
The FlOrldtdn ably argues the propricty OF the
Legislature providing for meeting the expenses
of the State government, but we think it begs
the question when by application it assumes
that the expenses of the State government to be
provided for were absolute and necessary expen-
ses. We ADMIT that the interest on the bonded
debt the salaries fixed by law, the expense of the
asylum for the insane, are all necessary expen-
ses but there are other expenses within the
direct control OF the Legislature, and which
| they can increase or decrease. Tie number of
members OF the Legislature had been unwisely
| increased more than one-third. The pay of
| members in the old scrip times never exceeded
| six dollars per day, equivalent then TO about
three dollars in sreenbacks, and mileage was the
| same then as now, ten cents per mile. In per-
| lars per day payable in greenbacks, and borrow
| ing money to ray it, and then increasing the
taxes of the people one mill 10 meet the amount,
the Legislature are open 10 criticism. We think
| il was a case where they SHOULD have limited
| their pay 10 four dollars per day and actual
mileage, and not created the necessity for raising
| taxes The Legislature could have reduced the
| length Of their session to fortyhve days without
| detrimcnt TO their work, and saved one fourth of
their per diem. We hope public sentiment will
| impress these ideas upon our public servants.
| The cost of the session of the Legislature was
$4,000, over one thousand dollars per day. A
reduction Of one-fourlh Of time alone would have
made difference of $lS500 at six dollars per
| day, and al four dollars per day would have
brought the amount saved up to about about
| $4,000, or about the amount OF the increased
| tax.
| But said a respected friend who was member
| Of the body, could not afford to leave my bus
| mess and STAY there at less than six dollars per
| day." That may be SO, but others could have
been found equally competent who could, and
the legitimate expense Of board in Tallahassee is
not over two dollars per day, and probably less.
We require Jurors and Witnesses to serve at
x1.25 per day, and many IA man gives time to the
| public service for compensation lar less than
his time is worth if employed in his private
business.
We entirely concur with the IFLoRIDIAN that
| we must provide for the payment OF our neces-
sdTy expenses, uul NC nope IL VIII concur Will
us that when the expenses are greater than nee
| cssary and can be curiaed, the responsibility
lies upon Tie legislature to curiail expenditures
and reduce taxation.
The FLoRIDIAN concurs entirely with the
Mirror that it is the duty of the Legislature to
curtail expenses 10 the lowest limit; but we
doubt whether had the session been shortened
or the per diem been reduced as suggested, a
- -. -
necessary all the same. There are four items OF
expenditure, viz interest, criminal prosecutions
asylum and schools, which cannot be met short
of a tax of ,ir mills on $32 1000 of taxable
property, and this is over $4,000 more Than was
returned last year, the return for 1880 being
1871, l57, s46 We need not say to our cotempc-
rary that the tax being 8 mills and out of the
being absolutely required for the items specified
the remaining tsro mills will not more than meet
the other necessary expenses, even If they will
meet them, The only hope Of their doing so is
from the fact that there will be no session of tho
Legislature in 1882, and that there aoiU be an in
crease in taxable resources
One mistake made by the late Legislature was
in our judgment, in not framing more stringent
revenue law, and by that we mean q law that
would have reached property that escapes taxa
ton and that would have taxed all property at
Its market value. To have done this would have
required departure from the old method of as
certaning and determining values and have in
volved additional expense, but would have re-
suited, in our opinion, in showing that the
taxable resources of the State, at only rcasona
BILE valuation are many millions more than the
tax book usually show. We believe that with {
good revenue law, all the expenses of the State
with proper economy, may be met with 81,
mill tax, and perhaps less.
We are told that the Legislature is too large By
third. Granted, but the present apporlion
ment was made by direction OF Article Is, Sec
ton Of tie Constitution, and cannot be changed
until after 1885, That article required one mem
Der at least to be given TO each county and ont
for every one thousand registered voters in adj
dition, but not more than four members TO any
county. The Legislature of 1877, in making thu
apportionment, acted upon the registration re
turns Of the several counties and gave them rep
resentalion accordingly; and while the result
was to create large Legislature, we do not see
how they could well have done otherwise.
james Adrer e Co. of CharlestOn tho sue