The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1900-10-06
REPLY TO AUDITOR DUNN,
Republican Official is an EXpe1i Jug
Elcr al tlyuica.

LII Il speech delivered by Auditor Dunn
ut Alllaca Il few days ago, Air. Dunn
charges the reform lurccs OIL being OK
travagunt and that tile present aumlll-
lslration has been very expensive, ans
presents some hgurcS trying " prove his
assertion.
1t Is suid that the devil, when lie at
tenpts to deceive The people, never
COMES out openly anu above board wlln
bareIaccu lies, but always 'mlngles JIsr
enough truth with his statements So as
to make it appear on the surface as lruln
and nothing but the truth, and II appears
to lne that i'll this case Alr. Dunn mas
adopted the same tactics.
First, he attacks the legislature of
1871, and says: 1.-The act Of this legls-
lature which brought the value OF re-
form home most clearly to the people of
Minnesota was the raising OF the tax
levy rate from ITO mills to 2-lU mills,
and further he says: lin 1893 tile leg
islature was given over to the kepuD-
hcan party, and the result was that TIL.
rate Of the tax levy was reduced to
l TO mills"
The above appears very we'll OH the
face Of it, but Mr.. Dunn has left out
just enough OF the figures and the facts
to be able to grossly misreprcscnt the
same.
In answer to Mr.. Dunn's statements
let me say that the first difficulty our
finance committee iii 1891 met with was
u large deficiency Of $1G9, O43.OO created
by Republican rule Of 1889, which had
to be provided for. Second, the Irvine
plant OF Saltwater, just established, de-
mandcd liberal appropriation in order
to successfully carry on the business OF
manufacturing binding Irvine, but Mr..
Dunn, and the rest Of our Republican
friends, would probably just us soon
have seen this undonc, and the farmers
continually hecced by the Irvine trusts.
In regard to the tax levy, will say
that the total rate levied in 1891 was
G-10 mills, and the total rate levied in
1893 was 3 $4,000 mills. Right here let
me ask: "Why did not Mr. Dunn, in
his speech, give the total tax levied in
1891 and 1893, why did he single out and
compare only part of it, that which was
levied for general purposes only? Be
cause Mr.. Dunn's object was to deceive
and mislead the people,"
Now, let us see which produced the
most money, the tax levy Of 1891 or
that of 1893.
For the two years, 1891 and 1893, the
total valuation of all taxable property
was 1925, O4S, ASSOC, ut the rate of
36-1O mills levied in 1891, produced for
the two years. 1892 and 1898, $4,43S,-
974.44.
The total valuation for the two years,
1893 and 1894, was Isl PSI ,S19,977.O0, at
the rate of 3 $500 mills, levied in 1903,
produced for the two years, 1894 and
1896, $4,550, 460.91. Thus it will be
seen TINT in spite of Mr.. Dunn's state
ment to the contrary, the total taxes
levied in 1901 for the two fiscal years
was Sill, 4SG.47 less than the amount
levied by the Republican legislature of
1893. These are facts that cannot be
refuted or disproved by Mr.. Dunn nor
any one else.
1t seems ridiculous that Republican
should criticise the taxes levied in 1891.
for the reason that they had the COVER
nor, Republican-nay, not only that,
but every institution in the state was
filled by Republicans, and they all beg
ged for funds, and a great deal more
than was appropriated, in order, us they
claimed, to properly conduct the insti-
buttons of the state, and if more was ap-
preciated than seemed necessary, why did
not the Republican governor veto the
same? He had the power-nay, it was
his duty to do SO, but no, he instead,
asked for more.
1t is true that the legislature of 1891
provided amply for all funds of the state,
and if in any case they provided for
more than seemed necessary, was that
any excuse for the Republican Office
holders to squander the money. Why
didn't they leave the surplus in the treas
ury? But no, they used it all, not the
reform forces, mind you, but the Repub-
lican otfice-holders. and now they kick