The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1906-10-24

because they have prevented some
counties from meeting existing OBJ
LEGATIONS while the law, he says,
made 1t possible for some counties ITO
double or treble county taxes" How
it was possible to double or treble
county taxes under the new laws when
the county courts are prohibited from
Ilevylng more this year than they
levied in 1904 plus seven per cent, l
am at a loss to understand. 1t is a
new sort Of arithmetic to me. whereby
seven per cent. Of anything can result
in doubling or trebling that thing.
Limitations on Levles.
Now reasonable word about the
matter of limitations upon local levy
! ing bodies. First of all, there always
has been such a limitation; and II
Mr.. McGraw's argument amounts TO
anything at all It amounts to this, that
he Is opposed to It, and he is In favor
Of allowing every county court, every
city or town council. and every board
Of education to levy all the taxes it
desires. Will he tell the people Of
this State that he is in favor Of that
sort Of thing? The constitution of the
State, made and adopted by the Dem
ocrats themselves, first put in a lin
itation of both the amount of the min
imum levy and the amount Of the in
debtedness that may be created. In
the matter Of creating debt this con.
stitution provides an absolute limita-
ton, which cannot be exceeded If
every voter. In the county should so
vote. Is Mr.. McGraw in favor of re.
pealing these restrictions? If so. will
he state to the business interests OF
the state that he favors taking off
the lid?" Besides this constitutional
limitation, the laws passed by Demo-
cratic legislatures put various limlta'
tons on local levies, especially as to
boards Of education; and in the char
tiers of cities and towns there is a
limit to the levies that may be laid.
The new laws put Limitation on,
based on the amount raised in 1904,
but they provide that the people may
vote additional. tax. If any county or
any municipal corporation, or any dis.
trict board Of education for the build
ing fund (for no limit whatever was
put on the teachers fund) find they
need more money, all they have to do
is to refer the matter to the people.
Does Mr.. McGraw oppose consulting
the people? II he is opposed to the
present limit what limit would he
propose? He tells us that IF the
State should suddenly be called upon
to meet extraordinary large eXpendi'
lures, for instance its alleged share
of Virginia's debt" something terri
Bile might happen. If the State be
called upon to meet extraordinary ex-
penditure, from some extraordinary
cause, such as the destruction of the
buildings of the State by fire, OF
course the State would have to raise
the money for that purpose. and
would have to do it by taxation, as 1t
is prohibited from borrowing. VIII
Mr.. McGraw tell us how else the State
meet such an emergency? Would he
violate the constitution by creating a
debt? He knows we couldn't put up
printing presses and print money, nor
could we coin silver at ratio OF IL to
l without consulting any other nation
or people, such as he advocated In
1896.
l presume the most Of the States
have Limitations on county and other
local levying bodies. In the excellent
book Of Prof. Richard T. Ely, "Taxa-
ton in American States and Cities
pages 4O3 and 4O4, he discusses this
and shows that these limitations in
several States ars as follows:
Arkansas and Alabama, - per cent;
Illinois, q per cent; Louisiona, ] per
cent; Nebraska, IL per cent; New
York, 2 per cent; Texas, z per cent,
or u of the rate of the State tax.
North Carolina, twice the State tax,
except for special purposes, and with
special approval of the legislature.
Missouri, X per cent. on aggregate
where valuation is not over $G,OOO,OO0,
and 2.5 per cent. where aggregate val
uation is between s6,OOO,OOO and $lO,-
100000, etc. There is also limitation
in these States on municipal corpora
lions. These are quoted merely as
samples.
Ito Be Continued.)
-
Beware Of olntments for catarrh that