Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1892-08-18

EDO
lected $7136 taxes. Including the
taxes from. the increase, adding it
to the amount paid last year on
the same number of dogs, yet there
were more taxes collected on dogs,
year before last year by $14.46, So
they cannot prove it by the dogs,
even.
CARRIAGES AND WAGONS.
Let us see about carriages and
wagons. The average value OF
these was diminished by 3S cents.
The average vslue last year was
1920, against 1888 the year be-
fore. Last year there were re-
turned 113,475 carriages and
wagons, valued at $2,179,O65, on
which you paid Al mills, making a
tax of s10,350.56. Year before last
there were 104,-437 carriages and
wagons, at valued $2,O45,226, on
which you paid Al mills, making a
tax of 10,738.44, which is 3S6.S8
more than was paid last year all
told. But last year you paid Al
mills on the same number of
carriages and wagons, valued at
1920 each instead Of 1888 as the
year before, making total valua-
tion of zoos, SOB and a tax of g.
526.14, less Tax of 1,212.30 than
you paid the year before. But with
it all, you not only saved 1,212.3O|
on the same number of carriages
and wagons, but we added 9,O3S at
a valuation of 1855, with a tax,
at A mills, of S24.40 that had been
escaping taxation. With these
figures, how can it be again urged
thatyour taxes have been increased
on them? You cannot roll such
an incorrect statement on wheels,
even.
AGRICULTURAL HALL.
will not undertake to discuss
in detail the Agricultural Hall
matter. Suffice it to say that there
are some very difficult legal ques-
ton involved. The owners of those
bonds can not sue the State.
AS matter of policy, I am clear
in my opinion that the Governor
was right in the course he pursued,
and, that the position of the State
Liz. t.o'77T---'-15 H. 'l77T-- 1s5a Is; naca better
5a!a...n 4 s.oGi,l have been led we
lost possession
r1NANcsar. eosris.,,s ~ ~!5s ST. :.
uo,s pass 10 gnolLo- sime u
deteuse against el4eso anjost char
Cos uaade against ug.
Are these charges true2 What
are the facts? Let us look at them
from a financial standpoint and
see if they are. When we again open
the books what is the first thing
that meets the eye? Why, we find
that the net cash indebtedness on
first day of November, 1890, was
All, ,253.40, with only 3,943.07 cash
on hand to the credit of the "Gen-
eral Account" Only 9,943.06 on
hand to meet the current running
expense of the government of this
great Commonwealth of ours!
How does that strike you? Does
that look like business? Does
that look like your affairs were in
a good condition?
Let us look at the condition of
of affairs one yearlater, the end
Of the first fiscal year of the pre-
sent administration and see how
they stand:
Coming into power under great
disadvantages, we closed the fiscal
year, November 1st, 1891, with a
net cash indebtedness of 363,617.-
81, with 22,S76.49 cash on hand to
the credit of the General Ac-
Ecount." How does this strike you?
Make the calculations and see
the difference. From Al, ,253.40
take 93,617.S1 and you have A.
1850, the amount we reduced the
net cash Indebtedness in one year.
From the 22,o7e.49 we had on
hand to meet the cmrrent expenses,
take the 3,943.06 on hand for the
same purpose the end of the year
previous, and you have 1S,923.43,
the difference in favor of our
management. Which shows the
better management, our or the
previous administration? Which
do you like better. the former or