West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1907-10-31
vindicated.

payers vi IreSton county that It's
position on the new tax laws has
been fully vindicated. 1t takes it
Tor granted that many of the tax
payers have already paid their
taxes. Those who have paid their
taxes for 1907 are now in a posi-
ton to determine whether it was
THE ARGUS or the Preston County
Journal that mlsrepresented the
new tax laws.
The "tax reformers" in 1906
were able TO show in some in
stances slight reduction in TAXA
ton by looping off part of the
direct state tax and then passing a
law restricting the levying boards
from levying beyond a certain per
cent. 1t was a bungling job, but
served its purpose and succeeded
In deceiving many of the taxpay-
ers. The restriction clause was
the "nigger in the wood pile" as
it prevented the county courts
from levying sufficient to meet the
indebtedness of many of the coun.
ties and left no revenue to make
the necessary improvementsw which
each county has to provide for
yearly. But the time has now
come when they are compelled to
levy sufficient to meet the neces.
sary expenditures Of both county
and state, and upon this levy will
be the true test whether the new
tax lawswill decrease or increase
taxation. The 1907 taxes have
given us our first taste of the in.
crease.
For the year 1907 the tax re
ceipts, which have been shown
The ARGUS, show a decided in
crease in taxation in Preston
county over 1906, which vindi.
Gates the position taken by THE
ARGUS on the tax issue in 1907.
1t must also be borne in mind
that the tax laws today are not
the same as the original tax laws
which. the "tax reformers" first in.
fiicted upon the taxpayers of West
Virginia. They have been amend.
ed in many respects.
The Preston County Journal
can now call upon the Samantha
mathematician of the Terra Alta
Republican to give US another ex
hibition of his humorous math
ematics. He can juggle the nu
merals as he may, but he will fin
the increase in the tax receipt q!
The ARGUS predicted.
The ARGUS feels anything bu
elated over the wonderful increase
in taxation for 1907. From time
to time it warned the taxpayer.
of Preston what they might ex
pect when the "tax reformers" 90
through tinkering with the taz
laws. For this many of its Dem
ocratic brethren insisted that TIL
ARGUS was making a mistake il
opposing the new tax laws anc
they were quite sure that the law!
would prove what the "tax re
formers" claimed for them. Thi.
was an honest difference of opin
ion and THE ARGUS was willing
to bide its time, knowing full wei
that the tax laws when put in full
operation would vindicate it.
You cannot reduce taxation by
increasing the state appropria
tons, which the present state ad
ministration has done. 1t has in
creased them 1000, 900 over the
last Democratic administration
There is quite a difference between
100000 and 100000. And
as long as the state appropriation:
increase the taxes must increase
in like ratio.
The question now is, however
will the Journal still contend that
The ARGUS misrepresentod the
new tax laws with the evidence
before it? Or is it sportsman
enough to frankly admit that il
was mistaken and THE ARGUS was
more familiar with the provisions
Of the laws than its ardent and
devoted champion? We pause fol
reply.
There IS one consolation to be