New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-03-14
DEMOCRATS And TIE STATE FINN


The tax rate is to be higher in this State this
year than it was last year. This is made clear
by the communication which the Democratic Con-
troer, Mr.. Campbell, addressed to the Demo
cratic Legislature few days ago What is the
trouble? Any new public works involving the
expenditure of large sum of money TO be pro-
vided for? No. Any big obligations to be can
celled? No. How does it happen, then, that
in 1892, when there are no unusual demands
upon the Treasury, the people will be compelled
to bear a heavier burden Of taxation than was
placed upon their shoulders in 1891? Mr..
Campbell explains His immediate predecessor,
Edward Wempe "a Dcmccrat-was Controller
for four years from 1SSS until 1892. In the
spring of SOL shortly before the Legislature adj
ournca, Mr.. Wcmplc, in his capacity as the chief
sca official of the State transmitted to tho Legs
ature, as is customary, the figures upon which
the finance committees Of the two houses based
the tax-rate These figures included an eSi-
mate of 81 100000 as the amount which the
succession tax law of 1891 was likely 70 yield
This estimate of the Democratic watchdog Of
the Tlcasury'-moaning Wcmpc-tunS out 70
have been a prOdigious bundcr or something
worse. "Aftcr nearly years operation Of The
new (succcssion tax law Controller Campbell
reports to tee Legislature, the actual receipts
I'D 70 February from this tax were only SCI
5i4 o. The estimate for the rest Of the year
on this basi; is Sf9.0S7 Is, making Sl,926.-
36S 70 less than the estimate for the fiscal year
Obviously, this leaves the Democratic patty
of New-York State in a bad predicamcnt. The
exposure made by Mr. Campbell conyic's it Of
4bo If York aud "a
having kept there for two terms. a man who wax
either gllringly incompetent or diShonorab.c. II
WempeS error Of S1,92G,3GS - in an csti-
mate Of 50 100000 was simply one Of judgment,
the verdict will be that he was an unusually
gifted ignonmts. But if the error was inion-
t.onal. his aim being unwarranably TO reduce
the tax-rate TO the end that the Democracy
might be able to make party capital ont of the
reduction, then he was distinctly dishonest II
is sad with the hope of rendering tie Demo
cratic position less Notifying. that leading Re
publican members Of the last Legislature, notably
Senators Sloan and Vcddcr. made . similar est
mate But tho responsibility Of the lawmlkcr
is not the responsibility Of the chief fiscal iii
cial when it comes TO money matters. Wcmple
cannot shelter himself behind the unofficial OK
pressions Of lawmakers. Besides, he must have
discovered last September that his cstimltc was
n rank absurdiy Why then did he not promptly
sound the note of alarm, so that the Legislature
might have been convened and the tax-ratc in
creased? The law governing The succession 'aN
contains this provision:
The Treasurer Of each county and tic Controller
Of the County ~ Network shall collect and pay tie
state Urea ,urr all take, that NAV bo duc and paw
md g. wlD elall Give him "A rec 'ff
therefor, Of which collection and payment De shall
make report under oath 10 the Controller on Che
first Monday Of March and september OF each Year.
stating for what estate paid. and IN such form ard
containing such particulars the Controller shall pre-
scribe.
Now the law in question took effect in May.
1891 so that when the State Treasurer reported
to the Controller on the first Monday in Scp'cm-
Der it had been in operation over fourth Of
year Consequently Mr.. Wcmple was in posi-
ton 10 be reasonably certain early in September
that the succession tax, instead Of raising s.,
600, 600 for the year was going 10 raise an in
significant sum. What use did be make Of 50
important a piece Of public information? He
made no use of it. lie held his peace. The tax
payers were kept in the dark. Can Mr. Wemplc
explain his silence on any theory which does him
credit? Did not this Democratic Controller de-
liberately deceive the taxpayers, his little game
being to hclp the Democradc party by such dis
honesty?
One other point. Can il be possible that the
new law in case it was thoroughly enforced all
over the State, would yield less than $4,000
wear? That is all it Is going to yield this year,
assuming that Controller Campbells figures are
correct. Is there not good reason to think that
in many counties it is dead letter? Wo yield
the floor to the officials whose duty ii is 10 see
that the law IL faithfully carried out.