The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1886-12-24

:
There are four men through who's,
hands all bills against the county mus
pass before they can be allowed
These are the county attorney and thu
three commissioners. Has it ever 0c
cured to these who are blaming lois
for their high taxes, that of these foul
men one lives in Humboldt, one IL
Salem and one in Usage while only
? one lives in lola? Is it likely that the
one lola man bull dOzes the three men
who do not live here into allowing
bills that ought not to be allowed?
J lola is now, and has been for the
past two weeks SO johnson & Perry
tell us. the only point in Allen county
where there was a market for broom
corn. AS result our streets have
been crowded with the product, a large
quantity of it having come from the
Swede settlement in the south east
part of the county. Some of it has
been deposited on commission, but
most of it has been sold outright, John
son & Perry having bought over 50 tons
in the past ten days. The price paid
ranges from $40 to so per ton.
About a hundred people were at the
Opera House last Thursday evening to
listen to the Third Party addresses by
Rev. Hawkins and NJ. V. B.
Bennett The speakers address
ed themselves exclusively to
the National aspect of the question and
had nothing to say about the "failure"
of prohibition in Kansas, about which
they talked so much during the CAM
paign. We believe they remained over
and held another meeting on Friday
evening at the Christian church, but
We were unable to attend and so can
make no report of it.
Considerable complaint having come
to us from various parts of the county
about taxes being higher this year
than they were last, we have taken
some pains to look the matter up and
ascertain, If possible, the reason. We
find number of things contributing
to this increase, but the main one is the
fact that there is much less personal
property in the county this year than
there was last. In 1855 the total val
uation of personal property was $685.
600. In 1886 the total valuation was
but $49S, 900, difference of nearly 20
per cent. Now it is clear that what
is lacking in personal property must
be made up on the real estate, and even
if we have to raise no more money this
year than last, the taxes of real estate
owners must be higher. But it is only
natural that as our county and State
grow older, their expenses increase.
Bridges must be built, roads must be
improved, and we must begin to pro-
vide for the principal of bonds upon
which we have heretofore paid only
the interest. For example, the COun-
ty Clerk tells us that at least two
thirds of those who have come into his
Office to inquire why their taxes have
increased, find on investigation that it
is because their school tax is higher
than it has been before. In number
of the Salem districts, for instance. the
school levy is from 30 to so cents great
er than last year. And in all cases we
think the increase may be accounted
for by the decrease in personal proper
ty, by the general increase in county
and State expenses the reasons for
which we have given, and by special
increase in local district and town.
ship expenses.
Sometime ago the Uaion charged
that the "Iola Ring" had raised the
taxes in all the rest of the townships
and lowered them in lola. We will
not waste time discussing the ease (?)
with which such thing could be ac-
complished, but will call attention to
a few figures, taken from the records.
The average assessed value of land in
lola township is Sc. 81 per acre. In
Carlyle, the next highest, it is 1886
per acre. In Humboldt it is $3.50 and
in ElsmOre, the lowest, it is 1888, the
remainder of the townships being be-
tween these two last mentioned. Do
those figures prove the Uni0n's propo-
sition? Again We find that the aver.
age assessed valuation Of town lots in
lola in SlO6.4 AZ, while the average valu-
alton of Humboldt town lots is 5000.
Does that look as though the lola
Ring'' was getting in its work in very
good shape, or does the Union main.
tain that lola property ought to be
considered worth four times as much
% Humboldt property instead of only
twice as much? We find another item
also. The total assessed valuation of
lola is $1,000 less this year
than it was last, while that of Hum
bOldt is $64, 900 less than it was last
year! How does the Union account
for that? Has its town actually lost
S64 900 worth of property within the
past year, or is there "Iing" down
there that is crowdiDg down values to
save taxes? One thing more: The
rate of taxation in lola city this year is
60 cents on the 500 higher than it was
last year, while the rate in Humboldt
city Is 20 cents higher than it was last
year. Taking all these things together,
did the Union have the least idea what
it was talking about when it charged
that IOla's taxes were reduced at the
expense of all the rest of the county ?
Is 1t right certain that the "Ring" it
bowls about is not ut Humboldt in
stead Of at lola?
NOTICE.
Having sold out my harness business
1 desire to collect all my outstanding