Los Angeles herald., 1910-10-19

forts to the duties of that office and
will not spend the county's time in
earning $1,000 fees"
walter ]. Desmond reviewed the ne
cessity for more economical admlnis-
tration of county affairs, saying:
"The office of county tax collector has
long been recognized as political pu-
reau for the distribution of patronage
under the direction of the Southern IA
cific machine Can any sane man who
knows the hold which that machine has
had upon various offices in the county
court house doubt for one minute that
the office which controls the largest
amount Of patronage has been free
from that baneful influence? think
not.
what would you expect to result
from a system established and main
tanned largely for political purposes
wouldn't you expect that the cost OF
collecting taxes under such a system
not be disappointed upon inspecting the
records from which / will quote briefly
I hold in my hand the report of the
county auditor for the last fiscal year,
According to that report (and l shall
sneak in round numbers) the county of
Los Angeles collected $7232,000 at an
expense of $1OS.S6S. During the same
time in the city of Los Angeles, accord
ing to a statement which 1 have here,
in the handwriting of and signed by
John S. Myers, city auditor of Los
Angeles, the collection of city taxes
amounted to about $4,5OO,OOO at an ex-
pense of $34,170.
CITES ExTRAVAGANCE
According to these figures, the cost
of collecting $1,000,000 of county taxes
20
the cost of collecting the same amount
during the same time in the city of Los
Angeles amounted to $7,47012-a differ
ence in favor of the system employed
in the city of Los Angeles of 103 per
cent. Now, ladies and gentlemen,
realize that it is easy for person on
the side lines to criticise, and / realize
that it is possible to do almost any
thing with a set of figures, but have
tried to be fair in my consideration OF
the facts presented by the figures !
have just quoted. 1t occurred to me
that naturally it would cost more to
collect the same amount of money from
the county because of extra postage,
extra telephone calls, extra books, and
other incidental expenses; but, 1 said,
there is one standard by which we can
measure the efficiency Of the two Of
fees, and that standard is the salaries
paid in both offices for the collection of
$1.0O0,0O0.
''The salary list for collecting that
amount was $13,730 in the county as
against $6S29 in the city. At this rate
one years collection of county taxes
is costing in the payment of salaries
S49.90419 more than it would If the
system employed in collecting Los An
geles city taxes were enforced. Or,
in other words, if the same economical
and businesslilee system now prevailing
in the city tax collectors office were
adopted in the county tax collector s
office it is apparent that there would
be a saving to the taxpayer in the
salary list alone of about 100000 dur
ing the four-year term of a county
tax collector.
SYSTEM DUE TO POLITICS
s'Now, ladies and gentlemen, this
condition, / claim, is a natural result
of a system conducted under political
auspices. 1 do not believe that politics
should have anything to do with ad-
ministration of the county tax coll
lector's office. The Lincoln Roosevelt
league, seeking reform in the Repub-
lican party, did not think so, and al
though they indorsed certain county
officials. including the treasurer the
assessor and the recorder, they re-
fused to indorse the incumbent of the
tax collectors office and indorsed DIR.
Swartwout to run against him. DR..
Swartwout was defeated for the nom
ination of the Republican party, third
candidate having been proposed in the
person of Mr.. e. q. Johnson.
AFTER the direct primaries the mat
ter passed into the hands OF the nom