The French Broad hustler. [volume] (Hendersonville, N.C.) 1896-1912, 1906-11-29

Au4Ay AOW MT" BROOKS Had 'SaV0Q LQ0
taxpayers of this county large amount
of money"
Editor Times The following state
ment, which appeared in THE TIMES
of November 2, is part of an article
written by Judge Blythe and published
for campaign purposes as I under
stand:
Statement No. 8. ''That the pres
ent tax collector had saved the people
large amount of money" This
statement is not true. That he has
collected the taxes fairly well, is not
denied. AS tax-collecUors are usually
paid commission on the amount
they collect, it is to their interest to
collect every cent possible. But the
principal test as to whether a tax-col-
lector has saved money of the people,
is the amount he returns and has
allowed in settlement as ''insolvent".
AS the past tax-year was year when
poll taxes must be paid on or before
May 1, if the party owing such tax de-
sires to vote in the coming November
elections, We will compare it with
the two other poll-tax years proceed.
ing.
''The 1901 tax, poll tax payable on
or before May L, 1902, r. 81. Station
6ax-colIector, insolvents returned and
allowed in settlement, $40 %. 1903
tax, poll tax payable on or before May
l, 1904, j. s. Rhodes, tax-collector, in
solvents returned and allowed in set
tlemont, $3.50 90. 1905 tax, poll tax
payable on or before May 1, 1906, @.
E. Brooks, tax-collector, insolvents
returned and allowed in settlement,
1919 40 The above shows the amount
lost by each tax-collector, Except the
amounts each was able to collect after
wards and have charged to them in
their next settlement, and these
amounts are about the ssIne); there
fore, it appears that instead of the
democratic legislative-made tax-col-
lector having saved the people thous
ands of dollars, on the face of the set
Elements he has lost for the people
500 40 more than did Sheriff Rhodes.
5000 26 more than did Sheriff Station.
1t is easily seen that there is no found
alton for these citizen candidates to
make such extravagant statements,
and it is equally easy to see that pur
pose of same is to deceive the people
who have not availed themselves of
the privilege of making an examina-
ton and comparion between republi-
car and democratic officials"
- As the above statement refers to the
collection of taxes in Henderson coun-
tY and attacks my official record as
tax collector, 1 do not wish it to pass
unnoticed.
The only real test as to whether a
tax collector has saved money to the
taxpayers of the county is the amount
he pays into the treasury; and to find
this you must take the amount charg-
ed to the tax collector and add the
discoveries he is able to collect and
deduct the amount of insolvents allow
ed by the commissioners in settlement.
This Mr.. Blythe did not do, but pub
ished only one side of the question.
The public records show the fol-
lowing:
Tax of 1901, poll tax payable on or
before May l, 1902, R. III. Station tax
collector, discoveries collected $805.25,
allowed in settlement for insolvents
$7lO23; which was a net gain to the
county of $95.O2. Tax of 1903, poll tax
payable on or before May 1, 1904, J. s.
Rhodes tax collector, discoveries col
lected $517.9O, allowed in settlement
for insolvents $S5O.OO; which was a
net loss to the county of 1892. 10. Tax
of 1905. poll tax payable on or before
May 1, 1906, @. E. Brooks tax collect
or, discoveries collected $1105.87, al
lowed in settlement for insolvents
1919 48; which was net gain to the
county of $ls6.39,
Therefore instead of your present
tax collector losing money for the peo
pie of the county, as Mr.. Blythe would
have you believe, he has saved for the
people $91.37 more than did Mr.. Station
and $518 40 more than did Mr.. Rhodes.
The records show for themselves
and Mr.. Blythe had no regard for the
accuracy of the statement made by
him, or else made the statement pure
ly for political purposes with the in
tention of misleading and deceiving
the people9f Henderson county.
Yours faithfully
o. E. BROOKS.