People's voice. [volume] (Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas) 1890-1917, 1894-09-21
MORE hot STUFF"
Zercher's Letter No. "A Reply
to TIOutman'S Answer No. |
FROUTMAN ROUNDED UP,
And his SOphiStical Argument Per-
fOrated until it Looks Like a
WORKOUT Fish Net.

10rated until II LOOKS Like
WORKOUT Fish Net.
Hon. James A. Troutman, Topeka,
KanS., Dear Strip to date | have
failed to receive a reply to my letter
to you, over your own signature, as |
had hoped to do. / have seen, how
ever, an article in the Topeka Capt.
tai under the caption "Daniel An
swered," purporting to be from you,
but owing to the unreliability of old
party partisan papers, l have been
10th to quote you on information
from that source. In it you are made
30 complain because you did not re-
ceive my letter for two days after it
appeared in the newspapers. But |
am informed that the reason is be-
cause you were out of the city chasing
an ignuS fatuuS, otherwise called the
Office of lieutenant governor, for |
mailed you the letter several hours
before it was put into the hands Of
any reporter or sent to any newspa-
pers.
You say that there was Sl22, 115.15
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
report just issued, and we find that
on July l, 1892, under republican rule,
there was s727,162.51 in the state
treasury: while on July l, 1894, under
PopuliSt rule, there was SS42, $685.,
or S115, 1872 more under POpulist
rule, Notwithstanding the receipts by
the state treasurer for the year 1894
we're $256, 973.15 less than under the
republicans in 1892. Had the receipts
under the PepulistS been the same as
under the republicans there would
have been 1912, 1867 more in the
treasury under POpulistS than under
the republicans. Now, Mr.. Trout
man, who is the figure juggler?" l
have shown by the official record of
the treasurer's Office that, had the re-
ceipts been the same in 1894 as in
1892, we would have 1872, 1867 more
in the treasury than under the repub-
lcanS, while you assert that there is
&l22,1 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 let
ter that we have Ouly to show up in
the state treasury one-tenth of
the 81, 412,636.22 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. Tie state tax levy for 1893 is
emily three and eighteenth mills, or
Just about One-tenth of the enJire
levy, Then in order to prove cOnclu-
sively that the Peoples party has
saved 81, 412, 636.23, or less than 1851,
900, as the rest Of the county, city,
school or township tax. But | have
shown up 1872, 1861, or more than
double the required amount to prove
my position. Now, on the other
hand, Mr.. TrOutmap, have you been
fair? You compared ] anuary l, 1893,
with January l, 1894.
Anybody knows that there is al
ways more money in the treasury just
before the legislature meets than af-
teawards. This is the history of the
state, and is invariably true. Why
did you not compare January l, 1892,
with January l, 1894, if you wished to
be fair? Then you have found that
on January l, 1894, under the Populist
rule, there was s227, 592. 10 more in the
state treasury than under republican
rule January l, 1892, which forms a
double proof of my claim that the
POpulists have saved 81, ALP, 636.23 to
the taxpayers of the state.
Again you say: "YOur letter to
me says you have saved s2,72l, 1921"
My letter doesn't say anything of the
KIM ana you KNOW 1t.
You call my attention to page IS,
stubborn Facts" where said there
we're S3l5, 1886 of unexpended bal.
ances for 1891. In my discussion
with your republican state senator,
]. W. Parker, he made use of this
statement, which accepted as cor.
rect. But if you will turn to page 79
Of the republican state treasurer's re.
port for 1922, you will find the cor.
rect amount TO be only Sl7l,ll2.SO
which is much less than either years
1893 or 1894. As my argument would
have been stronger with the correct
amount than the amount given, YOU
see that it was not an intentional er
ror. But then | had no business tt
accept any statement that republi
can makes without first veri 'ying it