Baxter Springs news. [volume] (Baxter Springs, Kan.) 1882-1919, 1899-06-24

OUR WAY TO Oct EVEN.
EDITOR News: We owe the Men,
phis Rail Road Co. $4,000 which
was bare faced robbery. We can
by the Law of Kansas charge all
railroads m occupation tax. Why
not pass q city ordinance charging
all railroads $500 per year and elect
q police judge who knows Q public
prosecutor from q prosecuting wit.
ness, who will enforce the ordin-
ance7
The old delusion which has occu.
pied the minds of some of our old
fossils that you can't tax hscks tax.
ing passengers outside the city 10
80 erroneous Ne ground hog day or
planting potatoes In the dark of the
moon. The state of Kansas gives
cities of the second class the right
to collect an occupation tax from
al railroads of every description,
and from aii hacks carrying pas
sengers In or through the city for
pay.
Our city ordinance does not
authorize the collection of . tag
from railroads, but Il can be
changed to do 90. The ordinance
makes II the duty of the city clerk
10 prosecute all delinquents, but
does not say he shall file the infor.
nation. An other ordinance re.
quires the city attorney TO prose-
cute all cases In police court, but
does not require him to make the
complaint In the last case where
In the city W Hunt the judge de-
cided the city clerk must make the
complaint. The law says the city
clerk and the ely attorney must
prosecute such cases, but no where
compels them to make the CON-
piaiut.
But whether the city collects q
tax from Hunt or not would sug.
gest the passage of an ordinance
providing for the collection of an
occupation tax from all railroads.
We don't honestly owe the Mem.
phis a red cent. They bulldozed us.
The Baxter Republican ssys the
Hunt prosecution cost the city $40.
II did not cost the city one red cent.
The came paper says Hunt has a
right TO run a hack by reason Of
his having been q soldier. I will
put SO against the Republican out.
ct that there 10 nothing in the laws
of Kapsss or the ordinances of the
the city giving old soldiers right
to run hacks without paying an &C.
cupation tax. I did not seek the
prosecution of Mr.. Hunt and II was
q email affair. but herein . princi.
pie 10 involved thst all taxpayers
are interested In. Either he should
pay IN occupation tax or al others
should be exempt. The whiskey
gang who support Hunt in this
matter would not have been 90
ready to slur me If I had been in
the habit of spending my salary In
their rum hole. But you fellows
are too small game for me to waste
ammunition on. C. w. DANIELS,
City Attorney.
We are compelled to disagree
with Mr.. Daniels little in the above
article. We do not think that by
compelling the Memphis Railway
company to pay an occupation tax
of $500 per year We would be get.
ting even. We don't know and never
heard of q town charging railroad
company an occupation tax. OF
course, they are abundautly able to
pay Il, but where wonld wc get even.
The Memphis people could. If they
felt 30 disposed, more than make
the $500 back by increasing freight
rates trifle-an Insignificant trifie
In fact. The merchants of the town,
who are now taxed heavy enough,
would have to pay the occupation
tax In the long run. Again, why
should we antagonize the railroad
We can't get even in
that way. And we don't believe the
Memphis people robbed US anyway.
We feel satisfied that the railroad
company was not benefited = parti-
Gle by the $4,000 which we had to
pay ON the old bonds. The attor.
neys. we believe, got Il all.
We rather like the Memphis rail.
road. anyway. II 10 all we have 10
the way of q public carrier, and Il
SCENE to Ne that Baxter 10 treated
about as we'll by the company a.
any other small city on its road.
But, seriously, we believe that to
try to collect an occupation tax
from the railroad company would
be like jumping out of the frying |
pan into the FIRE. As to the balance
of Mr.. Daniels article, we are not |
with the facts.
A DIAMOND FOR A DOLLAR.