The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-08-05

tickets emitting the owner to see the
grind Lama.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVEN-
I,ION.
Judge ]. NJ Mullen, of Petersburg, has
contributed TO the IndeS-Appeal an able
and valuable paper on the all absorbing
question of the forthcoming Constitutional
Convention. Judge Mullen goes thoroughly
into the question of the expenses of State
and county government, and concludes that
those who expect through revision Of the
Constitution considerable reduction in gov
ernment expenses will be disappointed 1t
has been time and again asserted that the
expenses of State and county government
in Virginia are largely in excess OF the cost
OF government in North Carolina Judge
Mullen was for years a practicing attor-
ney in North Carolina, as well as a mem
Der of the State Legislature. he is, there
fore, thoroughly familiar with the system
of government in that State, and he asserts
that there is no ground whatever for the
charge that ''North Carolina has a frugal
system Of government that costs less than
one-half of the Virginia system" He con-
tends that for State purposes our Constitu-
ton creates TO more officers than that of
North Carolina and that ii fixes the salary
of but one officer namely, the Governor.
IF we have more officers than are neces-
,sary." he adds. .'or if these are paid too
much, the General Assembly, ana not the
Constitution. is responsible"
In making a comparison between the cost
Of government in the two States, Judge
Mullen eliminates the sums paid on account
Of Confederate soldiers, criminal expenses,
educational purposes. eleemosynary institu-
ions interest on the public debt. and the
penitentfary. aggregating in Virginia $780,
$50 90. and in North Carolina S2,1=1,45I.62,
He dcducts. the item of criminal expense
because in Virginia this cost is borne by the
State. and in North Carolina by the coun-
ties The other items are deducted for OBJ
vious reasons, as they are in no way af-
fected by the Constitution With these de-
ductions he arrives at the following sum
mary:
Virginia. N Carolina.
Disbursements for
all purposes. So III, 4S0.So 2,532 SIS. AZ
Disbursements for
the six objects
above sDecifed... e,7eosS9.ca 2,14145L62
Amounts left for
running expenses. 391 ell 391. 3s0.SO
Against North Carolina s7c3s9.09
But, in order to lee entirely fair to North
Carolina, he points out that last year that
State paid S6s.552.51 on account of the Cen
eral Assembly. whereas Virginia expended
on the same account only a few thousand
dollars for clerk hire. North Carolina also
paid out for her military S40.553G7 against
s., 4245s paid by Virginia on the same &C
count. North Carolina paid for the main
tenance OF her Agricultural Department
S5%,64l7e while Virginia paid Only S6,S30.5o.
Eut, on the other hand, Virginia is charged
with SCI. 14G.1 on account of her oyster in
teres;. against a nominal sum in North
Carolina Again. Judge Mullen shows that
Virginia paid out $97. 49, IS for expenses in
CURED in collecting her revenues and cor
rectins errors, while the State government
Of North Carolina pays nothing for the
-
49, .as, -
-. s,oe 90, 20 go,
7-..,s.
$500 s,-.a..e. ''l.u = 49, - ~ 90
o.nno
-, -, ;. - ..,,,,+ 49,
50. - Ne,
- -, o,;,,;,,,
- 49, -. ,a,. ac,n,, ~nnnf,,
a,-na,so. 81, az lost fiscal wear exceeding
,-,.,,,, tor no same narioa nv
- sso enc co