Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1894-10-03

instead of increased. l. may
remark that the principal IN
crease has not been for supplies, but Tor
salaries. Our reform brethren have found
it necessary to quarter an extra number
of their friends in these institutions, IN or
der, / suppose, to more fully work out
their benefcent and economical designs.
There are other directions IN Whlch
economy can be employed to excellent adj
vantage, but | find that in all these, eX.
penses have been increased instead of
reduced as it was SO stoutly promised
that they should be- [ submit the fig
ures on clerk hire, labor about capitol,
transient labor, incidental expenses, etc:
For clerk hire in the state offices the
Republicans expended for the years 1888
800, $157, S1097. The Democrats eX-
pended in the years 1929 $3.50, 339.2S.
Democratic increase, $752S.31.
For labor about capitol, the Republicans
expended for the years 1SSS-9-90, S12O,-
65795 The Democrats expended in 1891
%, Sal, 946.63. Democratic increase,
$21 .270.6S.
For transient laborers, the Republicans
expended in the years 1SSS-9-9O, S992Z.-
~. The Democrats expended in the years
1923. $50. 1851. Democratic in
crease, 22,22112.
For incidental expenses, the Republic
ans expended in the years 1SSS-9-9O,
$47, 262.S4. The Democrats expended in
the years 1923 500, 1896. Demo
cFdlic increase, NlJ,fII .CZ.
The figures which / have given show
that the Democrats, instead of saving
the people money. have during their
first three years of rule expended under
the same heads and for the same purposes
an increase over what the Republicans
expended in the same time, in the sum
of S171, 601.9S. There are no estimates
here. SO far | have only given the
items of moneys expended as they APP
pear in the reports of the secretary OF
state. There can be no denying or dOdg-
ing these figures. But now it is neces-
sary to make a few estimates to show IN
all their fullneSS the beauties OF Demo
cratic economy. l have only given the
figures for three years. as the books for
1894 will not be posted until the end OF
the fiscal year. SO | must estimate Tor
1894 1t is strikingly noticeable in COM
pairing the expense of the last three years
that they increase materially each year.
1t will therefore be entirely safe to as
sumo that the expenses for 1894 will
equal the average for the three previous
years. In order, then, to correctly show
just what the situation will be when the
Democrats have completed their four
years of service, l must add to the sum
of increased expenses already given
proportiOnate amount for the increase OF
1894 This will be one-third of the
amount for the three previous years, or
Sol, 200.66.
This is but a partial showing. AS [
have said, | have omitted many items,
which, if included, would largely swell
the aggregate But taking only these it
appears that the Democrats, instead OF
practicing economy as they agreed to
do and now falsely pretend that they
have done, have, as matter OF TACT,
expended in excess of what the Repub-
licans expended in the same time and
for the same purposes, the prodlglous
sum of $22S,S02.6 81.
Were there to be added to this the in
crease in the other items which l have
omitted. the total would be more than
$500, 900, or nearly as much as has been
thus far received from the eX-state
treasurers. So it appears that after all
the buster about the treasury suits, that
the taxpayers have received little bene-
fit from them, as the Democrats have
squandered in other directions nearly as
much as they have recovered from the
treasurers. This is precisely what the
figures show.
While the figures that have given,
being the exact expenditures, item by
item, show conclusively that the Demo-
Gratis have been much less economical
than the Republicans there is still an
other way to show the equal correct
ness and force the same unmiSta table
fact 1t is by the tax levy. In 1890,
the last year of Republican rule, the
state tax levy amounted to 1891, 500. The
average levy for the years 1929, under
Democratic rule. was 81, 00S, 775.3S,a n av-
erage yearly increase of Silt, 115.38, or a
total increase for the three years of $351,
346.14. SO you see the accounts balance,
and one statement proves the other. Take
the total of the increased tax levy by the
Democrats, as compared with the last
Republican year, or take the figures as
given in the expense accounts and the
result is the same. There is no escaping
these figures Their correctness is I'M
deniable. They are taken from Demo
cratic reports as we'll as Republican. No
honest man will question their accuracy.