The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-02-28
THEY ANSWER.
THE COUNTY JUDGE AND COUN-
Try COMMISSIONERS ANSWER
THE ARTICLE OF "X. X. X"
They Go at Great Length Into Refuting
the Charges of "X. X. X" and Show
ing Why They Deem 1t mex
pedient to Further Cut the
Tax Rate.
Austin, Tex, Feb 26, 1895.

taxes for 1895, and the identity of the
author of which was attempted to be
hidden under the signature of NM"
With your permission we desire to sub
NIT a few facts in answer to the charges
therein made.
1t is one of the principles of our gov
eminent that the acts of all officers
should be open to public inspection and
subject at all times to honest criticism,
and no officer should feel incensed if
such right of inspection is taken advan-
tage of or criticism INDUCED, but when
any one calls in question through the
public press an act of an officer and
charges that such act was done in de-
fiance of law and in violation of their
plain duty" common honesty and de-
cency would seem TO demand that the
party making the charges should give
his name to the public.
We deem it an improper practice for
officials to rush into the public prints
to justify or explain every act of theirs,
which an anonymous writer may call
into QUESTION, and we would not make an
exception in this case were it not for the
fact that despite the hand of Esau, great
many people recognize Jacobs voice, and
give extra weight to the communica-
ton because the writer has heretofore
uClu OllCS III lulo COunIy anu SAiOuiN w
in position to speak advisedly.
To begin with we desire to call atten-
ton to few small inconsistencies in
the article itself. In the paragraph which
reads: The tax rate for 1894 for county
purposes was as follows: For general
revenue, % cents; for road and bridges,
10 cents; for courthouse and jail debt,
5 cents; for bridge bond purposes, 80
cents. The 80 cents" in the last line
should be cents, as one will find in
other portions of the article. In the para
graph beginning: These books show
that the 20 cent general revenue rate for
1894" the 1854" was certainly intended
for or at least ought to be 1893, for the
last October. And in the paragraph fol
lowing the one just referred to TX. X.
X" mixes $50, 900" with $1,000 in speak
ing of the courthouse and Jail debt in a
way apt to confuse some.
You may think that objection to these
inaccuracies are mere bubbles, 'but trifles
light as air at times become
more damning." TO persons not
acquainted with the facts these
inaccuracies may not be so appar-
ent, for instance, the substitution of
"1S94' for 1893" would tend to bring
the whole mater more into the present
than it really is, and while levy of 5
cents on the hundred on a SIG, 1O5,S7O
valuation to meet debt of $500 might
appear totally unjustifable, yet the COM
pleXion of the transaction would be de-
cidedly changed were $4,000 substituted
for $500, and while the so cents is known
to some to be intended for 8 cents, yet
IN the way it appears and in connection
4, with the total for last year, which was
80 cents, it is to some confusing and
misleading
And the statement "By simply comply.
ing with the law in the matter of the
bridge bond and the court house and jail
levy, the whole tax rate could have been
reduced from so cents to 2712 cents on
glaring mistake, for the bridge bond and
court house and Jail levy to-
gether amounted to only 10 cents, and
taking off all this would have left the rate
40 cents instead of 27115 on the 100 valua
ton.
We understand that INK" carried
his manuscript to another paper before
offering it to The Statesman, aid that
when presented to the cit.' editor of The
Statesman that it was read over by hin
and certain figures called to the attention
of the author as incorrect, and that he
took the manuscript away with him and
returned the article on the following day
written in type-writing, and that from this
the article was set up in the composing
room, and the copy" compared with the
typewriter article, and that "AXX
las made no public correct .ons and nc
private ones to any member of the com.
missioners court nor to any one else sc
far as we know. In view of the above facts
we trust that the cry OF ''haste" or typo
graphical error will not be INDUCED. II
seems little strange that "XXN" should
himself make mistake, and stranger still
that each and every one of those mistakes
should tend to strengthen the charge
made against us if allowed to go unan
swered, and we submit further that when
xxx" charges in the first count that
''the court has determined to take from
the pockets of the tax payers not less than
$4,000 during the coming year without
warrant of law and in defiance of business
principles" and in the second count that
we acted Gin defiance of law and in viola
ton of our plain duty" and seeks to JUS
lify that charge by facts and ii fur"s, that
he should be held to handle those figures
accurately and the facts with clrcum-
spection. ,,r,
been a time in the history of this genera
= ton when there existed so great neces-
sity for the smallest rate of taxation as
/, the present. The financial stress is greater
j than ever before in the memory of this
Z generation. Money is dearer than ever be-
fore. The tax payer who lives in the city
, of Austin is much over taxed. In addition
to all this, the State will raise the tax
rate for state purposes 10 cents, and ii
goes seem that this matter Is of sufficient
r,nhlic. general Importance to justify our
3 commissioners court in reconsidering
R their action, and if there is any plausible
excuse for so large rate of taxation, let
Them give it to the public; and if there is
B any mistake in these figures and calcula-
fions. correct them or explain them in
some way so as to justify their action"
81 we submit that the above paragraph is
he argument of q sophist. AS we under
stand it the great trust imposed upon the
F/ommissionerJ court is the :aising II reye-
/.ue and the expenditure thereof Tor the
county, and that their other duties are
incidental and subsidiary to this main one,
and in our humble judgment the true crl-
feiion u basis of the rate of taxation is
lfe lpC ssities of the county government
81. nomically administered. A rat. above
fhis or below would be equally objection
able. Neither times of prosperity nor low
municipal or state taxes would justify eX'
frayagance, and we do not think, on the
other hand, that by reason of high mu-
\ nicinal and state taxes we should be eX-
nected to piece the rate so low that the
reyenue derived thereby would be in
sufficient to meet the just demands on the