Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1888-01-05

The records of Iron county tell diff
ferent story. We need not go back to
1866 and come up all the % years in
tervening, but will commence with
1872. We find the levy for county pul-
poses that year to have been serenity
cents on the 500, and that the grand
total levied for county purposes on re-
al estate and personal property alone
was SO, ,927 SO greater than the county
levy on real and personal property for
1887; and for 1878 it was $40, ,5l6.74
greater than this year. In 1874 the
levy for county purposes was reduced
to SO cents, and the total sum levied
for county purposes for that year OH
personal and real was S5, ,849. q greater
than for 1887. For 1876 the levy re-
manned at soc; in 1877 itwas reduced
to 40c. The county court then chang
ed it's tactics, from that time on reduc-
ing the valuation instead Of the levy,
so as to give the taxpayer the advan-
tage of reduction in state taxes as
well as county. We do not ask you to
take our unsupported statement of
these things; go to the records, or
look at your old tax receipts. They
will show you that the levy for coun-
~ purposes from 1866 to 1871, inclu-
sive, ranged from sirty to seventy cts.
on the nunureU u0llarS.
That Is the aUay zoe paid our iadebt-
ettiaeSs, fel3OO-citizenS!
'"The Committee" further says that
with levy of forty cents on the SlO0.
with little or no revenue from the sa-
looms, our surplus was accumulated.
The records show that at the last
quarterly settlement with the County
Treasurer prior to the taking effect 0s
the Downing law, there was balance
of $923.lo in the treasury. At the
March term settlement with Collector
in 1888, the balance on hand was S.
454O4; March. 1884, SS,033. IS; March.
1885. S., ,853.75; March, 1856, $12,61I.99:
and March, 1887. $l4,730.63.
This shows you conclusively that
the large surplus In the county treas
ury is wholly due to saloon licenses
under the Downing Law-the asser-
tions of 'The Committee" to the con-
trary Notwithstanding.
We now come to Criminal Costs.
"The Committee" drags in the appro-
priations by the Legislature for four
years to pay criminal costs. and the
cost of the Missouri penitentiary for
fifty years, as though 1t was trying to
overshadow you with multitude of
figures! What has that to do with
Iron county?
We call your attention to one thing,
however: If Iron County adopts local
option she sUiJ still hare to pay her
share of the States Criminal Costs
costs saoao paid By saloon license.
'sThe Committee" includes all the ju.
ry fees, both petit and grand, also ju-
ry scrip, in it's account of criminal
costs. just as though we would have
no grand or petit juries or witnesses
to pay if Local Option was adopted by
Iron county! These expenditures are
no part of criminal costs, but we will
take "The Connmittee'su figures for it,
and, including every thing, it says the
costs for four years amount to $l2 zoos, >
mainly caused by saloons. 1t did not
pause to tell you that the saloons had
paid into the county treasury during
that time nearly $34, 900, and into the
state treasury $3,000 making a grand
total of S37 ,00O-1eaving balance, af-
ter paying "The Committees own
figures, of some $25, 900 to the creditof
license.
tsThe Committee makes the assertion
that IS per cent. of all criminal costs Is
caused by whisky. An examination
of the fee-bills filed shows that whis-
ky may have been the cause of about
80 per cent of these costs.
This, we believe, covers all the
points advanced in the circular. In
conclusion, we would say to the Tax
Payers of Iron County: Think this
matter over carefully, and vote as
your Judgment dictates! VETS.