Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1908-04-23

in itself should recommend it.
1t shows that in the matter of
figure Juggling and especially In
nerve to publish such fragrant m S
representations, the Day county
insurgents have made all the rest of
the insurgents look like thirty cents.
Yes, even Crawford himself, would
hesitate TO set before the thinking
public mass of succotash like that.
Why, the gall of the man is abso-
lutely unsurpassed. As fairy tale
it is to be classed with the best that
have yet appeared and should
seriously advise Mr.Grue to abandon
his present work and become lit
erateur, as his work ought to CON-
mand fancy prices, especially during
state campaign. The nerve and
mendacity of it is absolutely stagger-
ing. And still it is labeled facts and
common sense Now let us analvze
the article and see what he wants
you to believe He wants you to
think that the insurgents can pay
their appropriations with a 3 mill
levy in 1907 and a 4 mill levy in
1908, ana in this connection | want
to thank Mr.. Grue for admitting
something that no insurgent has
before admitted and that is that the
1908 levy will be 4 mills 1t sim
plities matters considerably.
He accuses the writer of "rehash-
ing and warming over" tax figures
for the voter in the different articles
written by me and to this l want to
plead guilty" The figures on this
tax proposition are as interchangeable
as anything can be and any series of
articles on the subject can only be a
repetition of certain facts that are
indisputable. But l cannot accuse
Mr.. Grue of "rehashing" because in
his previous article he tried to show
that taxes are no higher under
reform" than before, while in his
last article he admits all that the
writer claimed and then turns around
and with a bunch of figures tries to
make you believe that the high levy
is to pay an alleged stalwart defc
iency.
Now let us look over his figures
and see what we can find. lie
claims that the appropriations were
only 81, lS5,6Sl after deducting the
deficiency appropriation of S22,1S1,
and for the sake of argument let us
assume that he is right. | do not
admit that he is right but let us
make believe" that he is, SO that
we can argue with him from a COM
mon basis. He also says that the
total appropriations is $2,2O7, 1852.
Let us for the sake of argument
agree with him. He says they will
be able to pay these and also the
alleged S250,OOO stalwart .'defici.
ency." That makes a total of
S2,457,3S2. His first gross misrep-
resentation comes when he SAYS:
THE miscellaneous receipts of the
state for the fiscal year ending June
80, 1907 were little over $4,000.
1t is reasonable to expect that they
will amount to 100000 this year
(based on insrease in former years.
making the total receipts from this
source for the two years, to
$5SO,OOO."
In this he includes money paid
for the care of insane, and the
amount paid by the government for
the soldiers home, which is turned
over to the general fund but over
looks the fact that the appropriation
for these institutions are made only
large enough to cover the amount
necessary to maintain them in addi- |
ton to the amounts paid for care
and government aid. In other
words. the estimate is made of the
amount necessary and the probable
revenues are deducted and the appro-
priation made for the remainder.
Take in the case OF the Soldiers
Home for the fiscal year 1905 6 the
appropriation was $40,870 and the
government aid $18,925, making a i
total of $57,795. While the total
paid out according to the state treas
urer's report was $62,321 Showing
that the government aid can not be
figured to take care of any appropri-