The Baltimore County union., 1883-06-23
Correspondence BaifisieTs County UnieH.
COUNTY FINANCIAL MATTERS AGAIN,

BALTIMORE COUNTY, June 18th, 1883.
Msssrs. Editors :-Itis not my purpose TO divert
from the subjects which have been endeavor oring
to present 10 the public through the columns Of
your widely circulated and extensively read paper
no matter what kind Of assaults may be made or
what epithets employed TO try TO weaken the
arguments advanced TO show how peculiarly the
county finances have been managed. shall stop,
however, to say that l have no intimate personal
acquaintance with the Hon. John :. Gitlings,
foreman Of the late Grand Jury. Twas introduced
TO him Tor the first time about two years ago, and
have not had any conversation with him since.
know Of him, as many other citizens Of the county
do, on account Of the public position he held and
ably hlled rs chairman Of the committee of Ways
and Means during the late session Of the Legisla-
ture. lie made his mark there, and public opinion
points TO him as rising star In the armament Of
his party. also judge him TO be good inancier,
or the well known banking house Of John $. Git
tings Co. would not be In its present flourish
ing condition.
Now TO the subject Of my letter. said In a
previous communication that would show how
the tax rate might have been reduced by pointing
out some Of the estimates which are excessive and
others that are wholly unnecessary. Before doing
20 let Us turn to the levy for the present year on
the back Of every taxi bill IL tcElxcd statement
Of the estimate Of expenses for the year 1885,
Whoever suggested printing this ON the tax bills
deserves commendation from the tax.p payers Of the
county. II would have been better for the pur.
pose OF comparison TO have printed the estimate
VI expenses for 1852 along eide Of Il. Then the
Taxpayers could judge for themselves between the
increase aud decrease In the respective items and
u the totals FOR each year were given they could
also see how much larger the aggregate Of the e..
innate for the present year exceeds that Of last
year. The total estimate for lSs3 10 37i,9J0 !;
the estimate for lsS2 was S3j7,0O3. SO that the
increase for the present year Is only $l59i5 over
last year. notwithstanding the fact which is print
cd by itself ON the back Of the bill that the
Legislature required n special levy Of $4,000
$4,000 for n school building aud $4,000 for a
hreproof vault for the Court House. II the local
laws for the county involving the expenditure Of
money as in the two preceding items are to have
special shs''.' "a.aS q" them ON the taA -bius.
Why did the Commissioners omit 10 refer 10 the
act which empowered them TO levy $4,000 this
year for the fire department, for which the year
before last cost S2,000p
Now, while the estimate of expenses for this
year IL only sl7.9i5 than last year, the total
amount Of money levied for l. more than SIG, 600
in excess Of that levied for in lSs2-thc actual
amount levied for in lSs2 was S3l9,6iJ.O2, and
for the present year II l. S3jj,9j5 60. l. IL not
evident that there II much more money levied for
than what IL required TO meet what the estimate
represents as the current expenses of the county
Il not this a wastefui ieyying and collecting of
the taxpayer hard. earned money Five years
experience in the County commissioncrs' Office
should qualify the members of the Board TO cal.
culate more closely than what seems 10 have been
done the probable expenses Of the county for one
year. The annual statements for the three years
ending June Let, lSs2. compared with the annual
estimates Of expenses for those ycaFs. show that
the County Commissioners disbursci s35, $685.
more than their estimates called for. large levy
will inevitably lead to the expenses being In cx-
cess Of the estimates. as this $4,000 extra dis
bursements plainly show. Rigid economy always
strives to keep the expenses within the estimates.
L.a al. 80 l..
present Board. Disbursements amounting to $751;
3j6.i5 in excess Of the estimates for three years.
and levying for $4,000 more than l. necessary
when the large amount Of outstanding unsolicited
taxes are taken into account, are not hopeful cv.
dences Of economy and reform in the future. should
the present practices prevail.
Now, when We look at the almost stationary
basis Of the taxable property Of the county. not
withstanding the large additional assessment.
made every year BY the assessors Of rev and
missed property, and view the increased lcyics
made from year 10 year. and see the disburSc-
ments every year in excess oi the estimates, who
predict the baiciul effects Of such hJsrai man
agement unless il j. checked at once by those who
have the power to do it. Some of the readers Of
Tar CSioS who were surprised when they saw
what was in n previous communication concern.
ing the large amount Of new property assessed.
while the basis remained almost stationary. will
have their surprise converted into astonishment
when they learn that these assessors from the year
ISIS 90 lSs3. have assessed S1,3sO, $50 worth Of
property, and yet the basis has only increased
about 81 l.G0O,0OO. The basis in ISIS was $5S,.
322. .i27 the basis on which the prcscn; levy was
made is S59. .52G.237. being fraction over 81 .O0O.
600 increase. What has become Of the remaining
S6,3SO,OoO: q, were on the books the tax rate
ought TO be much less than 81 cents instead of 60
cents as at present. Ii the couniy's material
wealth has increased with the increase Of popula-
tion IL has by some means been hidden away, like
the misers gold, to escape taxation. The assessors
Of new and missed property have found over seven
miilions of it, but the payers are only benefit
ted to the extent OF one million OF II.
With your permission shall continue thi. i'm
pOTtant subject in another communication. u.