Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1894-09-26
TRourMAN RouNpEo up Ac.,N

over your signature, as l had hoped to
do. Ihave seen. however, an article
In the Topeka Capital under the cap
ton Daniel Answered." purporting
to be from you, but owing to the unre.
liability of old-party partisan papers,
L have been 10th to quote you on in
formation from that source. In it you
are made to complain because you did
not receive my letter for two days after
1t appeared in the newspapers. But /
am informed that the reason is because
you were out Of the city chasing an
ignis fatuOus. otherwise called the Office
of lieutenant governor. for 1 mailed
you the letter several hours before it
was put in the hands of any reporter or
sent to any newspapers.
You say that there was $122, lis. Is
less money in the state treasury than
when you (populists) commenced saw
ing it," What are the facts? Turn to
page Is of State Treasurer Biddle's re-
port, just issued, and we find that Oh
July l, 1892, under republican rule,
there was $727 1852 81 In the state treas.
ury; while on July l. 1894, under popu-
list rule, there was $50, 326 @, or $II5,-
1872 more under populist rule, not
withstandiDg the receipts by the state
treasurer for the year 1894 were 1886,
973. Is less than under tho republicans
in 1892. Had the receipts under the
populists been the same as under the
republicans, there would have been
1872, 1857 more In the treasury under
populist than under the republicans
Now Mr.. T;0utman, who is the figure
juggler?" 1 have shown by the official
record Of the treasurer's Office that, had
the receipts been the same IN 1894 as in
1892, we would have 1912, 1876 81 more in
the the treasury than under the repub-
licans; while you assert that there is
$l22, ISIS less IN the treasury. l call
upon any person to consult the state
treasurer's Official report for 1894, page
Is, as to the truth Of my statements.
Again, l showed in my former letter
that the 81, Az, $685. o, saved by the peo-
pies party, consists OF state, county,
school. township and municipal tax.
Now, the average tax levy in Kansas
for all purposes IS from 81 to 4 per cent.
The state tax levy for 1893 is only 81
mills, or just about one-t tenth or the
entire levy. Then, in order to prove
conclusively that the peoples party has
saved 81 ,4l2 ,636.2S, We have only to
show up in the state treasury one tenth
of the 81 ,412 ,636.23, or less than $156,
600, as the rest of the tax was county,
city, school or township tax. But /
have shown up 1912, 1867, or more than
double the required amount to prove
my position. Now, on the other hand,
MIR. Troutman, have you been fair?
You compared January /, 1893, with
January l, 1894. Anybody knows that
there is always more money in the
treasury just before the legislature
meets than afterwards. This is the
history Of the state, and Is invariably
true, Why did you not compare jan
uary 1, 1892, with January l, 1894, if
you wish to be tairp Then you would
have found that on January /, 1894 un-
der the pOpulIst rale, there was 1927,
592.79 more In the state treasury than
under republican rule January l, 1892,
which forms q double proof of my
claim that the populists have saved
81 ,412, 1923 to the taxpayers of the
state.
Again you say: Your letter to me
says you saved $2,72l 1882 81" My let
tes doesn't say anything of the kind,
and you know it.
You call my attention TO page As,
stubborn Facts" where said there
were 1915, 1885 of unexpended balances
for 1891. In my dlscRsai0n with your
republican state senator, }. w. Park r.
he made use OF this statement, which
l accepted as correct. But IL you will
turn to page 20 Of the republican state
treasurer's report for 1891 '92, you will
find the correct amount to be only $l71,
1880, which is much less than either
years 1888 or 1894. AZ my argument
would have been stronger with the cor
rect amount than the amount given,
you see that it was not an intentional
error. But then had no business to
accept any statement that q republican
makes without first verifying it. But,
Mr.. Troutman, why did you purposely
make use OF the wrong amount when
evidently you know the correct amount?
Again you say: THAT you don't know
that the populists saved $244, 650.e0 in
reduction of salaries Of county officials,
and that don't know it either. beg
your pardon, but do know it, made
a calculation Of each and every county
in the state where such reductions
we're by virtue Of populist bills, with
the above result. Allow me to congrst-
ulate you on your frank acknowledge
ment that 'syoI don't knQY IT," how
ever. 1t must be on par with some
of the other things that you pretend to
know but don't know. Such confes-
sion on other points would doubtless
relieve y04 easier. When yQg say that
populists were only following republi.
can presidents, 1 must say that you are
the first republican, to my knowledge.
who has ever dared say our party fav-
ored reduction Of salaries of county
OFFICIALS until forced to do SO by public
sentiment created by the populist par
ty. In many cases the salaries were
raised instead Of reduced prior to that
period.
Yes sir, Mr.. Troutman, l said $722,
S54.42 tax was taken from the should
ers of the common taxpayers by the
populist board Of railroad assessors
when they eaualised the Taidroad as
sessment with other property OF the
state, and you don't dare go before the
people OF Kansas and attempt to justify
tina lnEuoPsna, 49,