The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-12-21
COUNTY EXPENSES VARY
SOME FIGURES THAT SHOW THE
CRYING NEED or REFORM.
Per Capita Cost in one County Vastly
in Excess of that in
Another.


methods generally have wholly outgrown the
laws organizing and providing for the adj
ministration of county aud township bust
ness. The public demands, evidenced by the
agitation on the subject in all parts of the
State, have put many to inquiring into the
needs of 4 reorganization of the forms Of
procedure in local administration. This is
true not only in Indiana but in most other
States. The basis of these demands is found
in the unequal taxation and expenditure in
the various counties of Indiana, so far as
this State is concerned. The forthcoming
report of the Bureau of Statistics shows
some startling inequalities
Take the matter of county poor expendi-
lures. for instance, and it is found that a
county with 320O0 population spends more
than four times that of another county for
this purpose with 10000 population. while
another county with little over $1,000 in
habitants expends five times the amount fer
this purpose of another with over 10000 pop
ulaton These are not isolated instances of
discrepancy of expenditure to population,
but there are scores Of facts much like these
in various parts of the State when county
expenditure for this purpose and population
are compared.
Take the matter of county administration
a. d WlJlc, anu IL IL lUdAiu lIidt tic 0ApcIo5
of elections. printing. etc, repairs and all
other miscellaneous expenditures in one
county is 81 cents per capita, in another it
is 1922 per capita, in another it is $1.12 per
capita and in another $646 Indeed, in these
items of expenditure alone the amount runs
from II cents in one county all the way up
to 1922. II cents being the lowest amount
per capita for such expenditures.
Taking the item of total criminal ex-
penditure, the cost per inhabitant in the va
rious counties varies from 3 cents up to 20
cents. There may be reasons, and are local
ones, for the differences in these expendi-
lures, but the variation is SO great and so
frequent when counties are compared as to
impress one that these local causes do not
occur as frequently as shown in these items
OF expenditure.
The total cost of county administration in
the matter of county officers is found to
vary from % cents per capita up to $1.19.
A county with over $1,000 population has an
expenditure for this purpose of rs cents,
while another with a population of little
over 1900 expends $l.10 per capita. The
variations are so great and so frequent in
comma rison Of one county with another that
one is impressed that there must be some
thing wrong either with the administration
of affairs or the basis upon which the bust
ness is conducted.
Under the head of total extraordinary ex-
penses, for which, of course, there may be
special reasons, such as public buildings,
ETC., 1t Is found that While one county, with
something over 10000 inhabitants, expends
1 cent per capita, another county with "a
600 inhabita ITS expends 81. 81 per capita. and
another with 81 600 inhabitants expends $2.62
per capita, another with $4,000 inhabitants
expends 81 per capita. another with 1900
inhabitants expends $l3e per capita, another
with over q, 900 inhabitants spends $l6 per
capita. another with a little over $1,000 in
habitants spends $4.S2 per capita, another
with $4,000 Inhabitants spends $50 per cap
tia, another with a little over 5000 inha b.
ltants spends $3.05 per capita, another with
25 900 inhabitants spends 1886 per capita, and
so it goes through a great number OF coun-
ties varying, as stated, from ] cent up to
the largest amount already mentioned.
AS stated before, some of these counties
are building courthouses and some are max
ing other public improvements, but 1T IS
known from the various sources through
which this information is obtained that
considerable number of the counties which
are indulging in large expenditures under
this head are not engaged in such public
improvements and therefore the discrepan-
cies, as shown in the comparisons between
counties, will have to be accounted for on
some other ground. This fact, it may be
said is the very heart of the Well-nigh uni
versal complaint at the large expenditures
which are being made IN some OF the coun-
ties of the State, and, furthermore it is this
fact in regard to expenditures on all ac-
counts that is causing the clamor among
the taxpayers generally for reform in local
administration.
Again viewing this matter from the stand
point of total expenditures in the various
counties of the State, the following condi-
ton is found. viz: A county having pop
ulation of little over 900 had total ex-
penditure for county administration of rs
cents per capita, another with little over
q 800 population had an expenditure of 1920
per CAPITA another with IS, 800 population had
an expenditure of $10.32 per capita, another
with little over 5000 had an expenditure
of $15f6 per capita, another with $4,000 in.
habitants had per capita expenditure OF
1888 another with a little over $1,000 had
a per capita expenditure of $S.14, and 1t is
found that sixty-one counties Of the state
exceeded 81 per capita of total expenditure
on account of general county administration,
while twenty-nine other counties expended
from 81 II to $1.97. Thus it is seen that while
the lowest expenditure on general county
administration was 70 cents, the highest was
S1516 and all the other counties ranging
between this minimum and maximum ex-
penditure.
From these facts it will be seen why there
is so much inquiry In the public mind IN re-
gard to local administration, and 1t IS
subject that will not down until there IS a
thorough reform both in the law and the
methods of these expenditures.
In a future review iof local administration
the matter Of receipts and expenditures by
the township trustees of the State Will be
taken up and presented to the public