The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-06-29

in the past. Her revenues may in-
 crease. Her treasury may be full. and
 they may be able to appropriate out
 of the treasury the funds necessary for
 the purposes intended. but If the t.me
 should come. MT. President. whsn slcn
 is not the case. let us so fix this Gen.
 stitution that the Legislature shall
 have the power of appropriating CT
 Borrowing the money for the im-
 provement Of the State Capitol and its | grounds.
 MT. Weatherly-I do not wish to ap- l pear discourteous to the gentleman wLo
 has offered the amendment in what I
 am about to propose, nor do intend to say that l lack sympathy for the cause
 which he advocates, but solely for the purpose of doing whatever I can to help to confine this convention to it's real work. move to lay the deleEate's amendment on the table.
 MT. Watts-Upon that I call for the | ayes and noes.
 The Chair declared that the call was not sustained, and upon a vote being taken the motion to table prevailed, MT. Borwne-I move the previous question on the adoption of Section 3.
 The main question was ordered. and upon 3 further vote being taken the | Section was adopted.
 | The President-The Clerk will read the next Section.
 Section was read as follows: | Sec. I. The General Assembly shall not have the power to levy, in any one year, greater rate of taxation than sixty-five one-hundredths Of per centum on the value of the taxable property within this State. MT. Browne-With reference to that
  mittee on Taxation has made a very thorough and very careful investiga. tion into the condition of the finances | Of the State. In the estimate that I presented before this Convention when | the Article was first taken up, think | that clearly showed that we could safely reduce the rate of taxation from 70 to 65 cents upon the $100, to take | enect within the next fiscal year, and that we would then have a surplus of receipts over expenditures. know that some gentleman have criticised those figures, but let us see whether | or not they can be justly criticised. The levy for the next fiscal year has l already been made by the Legislature The expenditures for the next fiscal year are already fixed and cannot be increased or decreased. Then, all that Is necessary to be done, is to see what | the next fiscal year. passing the receipts upon the same property valuation that we had for the last fiscal year. Ger tainly no gentleman uuon the floor of | this Convention will for one moment | contend that the tax valuation of prop 1 erty for this year will be less than 1t was last year. Taking the same valu- ation that we had for last year, adding to the receipts of next year the clean I Ww@IrW N2 SR ~4-.kA e.. NE-4 | fiscal year over disbursements, then taking $147, ,000 of extraordinary appro- 1 priations for this fiscal year. which have been made and cannot be made 1 for next year. adding to that $71,000 | that was expended in the reduction of the deficit this year that will not and cannot be expended for next year and we have about the sum of $280,000, | which will be the difference between the receipts and disbursements for the fiscal year ending October 1, 1902. Take from that one mill, which nets the State $247, ,00O and any one that understands figures wil1l readily see l that this tax rate can be lowered for the next tiscal year.
 then went further in the statement l and said we could safely estimate the increase of taxable values for the next | fiscal year, over the last, at $8, 900 900,
 
 | over last. But gentlemen who oppose this reduction said 1t will not amount to that, and I wrote a letter to every l Probate Judge in the State of Ala bama and I asked him two questions: | what was the taxable value of the 1 property in your county for the last | year, and what Is the taxable value for this year? I have had replies from thirty-four Probate Judges, and they 1kA fVO nf VI . still have thirty-two Probate Judges to hear from. That will net the State, in addition to the surplus, forty odd thousand dollars; then the increase from license taxes estimated at $20 900, would make an increase of $60.00O even if we should reduce the tax.
 Now another estimate in those fig ures of the other day, and some gen. tlemen don't like estimates, I estimated that the receipts of this fiscal year at the actual amount of the receipts re- ceived into the State Treasury as shown in the Auditors Ofice, up to June IS. l then estimated the re- ceipts from the 18th to September SOth. at the same ratio of increase as was the ratio of increase up to June 18th of last year, which gave me S10,000. Gentlemen said that would not do. I went into the Auditors Office this morning and I asked him two tues tions: what were your receipts last year from June 18th. until Ind inclus- i've of June 27th. nine days. end I got the figures. What have they l"icn this year up to the close of your off1ce last night? get the figures. and had the Chief Clerk in the Auditors Office to make the calculation, and I found S6, 800 in excess of last year for nine days, and I only claimed S10,090 for the time between June 18th and Sep tember 30th.
 MT. Sanford (Pike)-I would like to ask a question. I do not do 1t n spirit of antagonism, but to hear you discuss it.
 Mir. Browne-I am glad to accommo- date the gentleman.
 MT. Samford-We are on the eve of refunding the State debt What is your idea about the reduction of he tax limit and its effect upon that proposi- tion?
 MT. Browne-I will state that the matter has been very carefully consid- cred by the Committee, and that the Committee agree that 1t will not have any deliterious effect upon the refund- ing of the State debt.
 Now, I think these figures clearly show that we could reduce this tax rate for the next year. The Commit tee does not so recommend, however. The last General Assembly has made A levy at seventy-five; that is at fifty five for general purposes, and one ex- ira mill for soldiers and one extra mill for educational purposes. Now that