The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1909-10-02
A BOURBON VIEW.
7. F. Morrison, Democrat, En-
tiers High Tax Controversy.
His Caustic Reply to Gov. Stubs
Letter.
TELLS SOME HISTORY.
The Attempt to Increase Gov
ernor's Contingent Fund.
Were Extravagant.
TELLS SOME HISTORY

T. F. Morrison, the Chanute attor-
ney and Democratic member of the
last legislature from Neosho county,
has broken into the high tax contro-
versy, and being Democrat, his
views are not without interest. Nor
rison had sharp and caustic tongue
which he used as thorn in the side
of the majority during the last ses-
sion. That he did not empty the
sack then is shown by his reply to
Gov. Stubs letter to him in explana-
ton of the increase in state taxes.
Gov. Stubs would better not have
undertaken to explain this matter to
this sarcastic and quick-witted little
man from Chanute.
Mr. Morrison, after a brief review of
the main points in the controversy oV-
er the million increase, concludes that
both Gov. HOch and Gov. Stubs were
extravagant beyond the widest OF
spendthrift dreams.
The feature of the Chanute mans
contribution to the controversy is his
placing of the 100000 government
check on the scales against Stubbs
when the latter had claimed the sum
as a balance in his favor. Morrison
also tells a ways and means commit
tee story that has its portion of hu-
man interest.
The following is the Morrison reply
in part to Gov. Stubs letter:
How do you account for this diff
ference of almost a million dollars if
1t is not a higher tax levy than any
previous levy in the history of the
state? Your administration was heir
eral government on old claims and
your administration has used these
funds to apply upon the big appro-
priation of the last legislature. Now,
as a matter of fact, if your admins
tration had not used this money the
state tax levy this year would have
been $425,065.42 greater than what it
really shows. Your stateTent that
the 100000 appropriated for the |
Memorial building will have to be
leading because the bill carrying the |
appropriation for this building pro-
vided: That payment should be made |
as follows: Fifteen thousand dollars |
Or so much thereof as may be neces-
sary, as provided in Sec. 2 of this act; |
s135, 200 for the fiscal year ending |
June 80. 1910. and $4,000 for the |
fiscal year ending June 80, 1911, or |
so much thereof as may be necessary; |
provided, however, that no contract |
said building until said $425, O65.43 !
has been paid into the state treasury" |
You should endeavor to explain to ;
The tax payers how your administra-
-lOH Will Sp0nQ the $4,000, S94.YS that !
has been placed at your disposal by !
The state tax levy and the money re- |
eeived from the federal government
On old claims and not beg the ques-
ion by hiding behind the Hoch ad-
laying the Blame Upon Hoch.
The taxpayers now are thinking
about the taxes they will have to pay
n November, not what they have al
'eadv paid. If, as you insnuate, and |
: will not deny it, the Hoch admins
ration was extravagant that is no de-
,ense for your administration. If the
doch administration was guilty of
aking $4,000 received from the fed |
eral government and turning it into a
state fund and keeping still about it,
hat is no defense for your admins
ration to take $425,065.43 and use it
n the same way. You charge that the
1och administration was not what it
should have been and Hoch replies
hat your administration is an extrava-
sant failure I am of the opinion that
10Th have made correct statements.
An Unpublished Incident.
when you say that the members
# the ways and means committee of
he house of representatives worked
or weeks by day and night to keep /;
lown appropriations as low as posi-
Me- you are either knowingly or I'M
making a statement that is
resh in the minds of many that your
nittee in the house of representatives
anne upon the floor of the house and {