The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-11-17
Nothing happens In this wsrld
without the permission OF Godj
rrlsc your thoughts toward the In
Unite, to enable you to support the
evils of the moment.-st. Pierre.
auEsr1oNs Fon COUNTY rAx-PAY.

auEsTIoNs FOR COUNTY TAx-PAY.
The exhibit made in yesterdays
Times-Dispatch in relation to tax
gathering in Virginia should cause
The Taxpayers In some Of the counties
10 put on their thinking caps.
For collecting State taxes in 1905
the state paid the treasurer OF Hen.
rico county $4,000, and the treasures
Of Norfolk county $2.73123: for col
lecting county taxes, Henrico paid her
treasurer s4,26S.10, while Norfolk
county paid her treasurer $2.55S.51,
Yet the Norfolk county treasurer col
lected in county taxes $12s.76613, while
the Henrico treasurer collected $685.
s73.57. There may be sufficient reason
for this difference. but an explanation
from the Henrico supervisors seems
to be in order.
ed more taxes than the treasurer of
Accomac; yet the one received a COM
pensatlon of $1,000 and the other So
500.
Why should Brunswick have paid
1886 for collecting $2s,s72 and Camp
bell $4,000 for collecting s42,s39. when
, Augusta pays only s1,54s for collecting
s1o4.ss4?
The collections in Fairfax and Eau
quier were practically the same; yet
the one paid her treasurer s2o52 and
the other s1.se5.
Why should Floyd have paid $1,13t
Tor collecting ;16.9ss. when Nansemont
paid only s7ss for collecting $4s,o54?
Why should Nottoway have paid
s1.o12 for collecting ,1s.s61, when the
large county of Mecklenburg paid but
f1.1ss for collecting $4554e?
Why should Powhatan have paid
S9ss for collecting $12.455, when Prince
Edward paid only sos for collecting
s16.3s3?
Why should Roanoke have paid
s1.7se for collecting 3ae.2os. when
Rockbridge paid only ,l.1o2 for col
lecting @55.3o7?
Why should Amherst have paid
$1,000 for collecting 32S,4ss, when
Greenesville paid only $500 for col
lectins ,ss,sse:
Why should Halifax have paid
.s.1s5 for colleting -s56.s44. wher
Pittsylvania paid but @1.s76 for col.
Acting $52.534?
There may be satisfactory expla.
nation of these disparities but it does
not appear on the surfaces
Tor the further information OF tax.
payers. we append the following lis
showing what the State paid for col.
lecting State taxes in the countie.
AAmsd:
Accomac. sl,456: Albemarle. sl.377
Amherst, 1884; Augusta, 1921; Bruins
wick, 1850: Campbell. 31,O37; Chester
field. s1,osS: Cumberland. s49S: Fairfax
SLID; Fauduier. sl,724; Floyd. $500
frederick 500; Greenesville, $59s
AAlifax. s1.70O: Henrico. $4,000; Neck
lehburg. s1,o4o; Nansemond. sl.4O3
Norfolk. s2.731; Nottoway, SSH; Pitt
sylvania, $685. Powhatan, s4sa
Prince Edward. 1915; Roanoke, 5000
Rockbridge. s2,23s.
We believe that the whole system
of tax-collecting in the State AM
counties is faulty and III need of re
formation. We believe that the com
mission system is wrong. 1t is Ger
tainly wrong for the State to alloy
tax-gatherers to deduct their com
missions and then send balance /
Richmond. They should be required /
send the whole amount to the depart
ment in Richmond and then let TIL
Auditor OF Public Accounts figure GU
the commissions in each case and dra,
his warrant for the same.