The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1912-05-29
HE FLAYS STUBS
Judge Jackson Shows How Ex-
pense Is Piled Up.
Comparison Shows Reform"
Comes High in Kansas.

Democratic nomination for governor
delivered the first speech of his cam
paign here before the Wichita Jackson
FOr-GovernOr club.
He lauded Champ Clark and told Of
extravaganza in the present state adj
ministration. He talked of taxation
and finances. He argued against the
Capitalization of power and for its ols-
tribution among the people. Judge
Jackson said in part:
| Let us take Governor Baileys ad-
ministration, which made no claim tc
the progressive cause, and compare II
with that of Governor Stubbs- Not
that 1 indorse either, but to show you
what a rank pretense for the progress
i sive cause has been Governor Stubbs
administration. 1 will take my county
/ (Cowley), which will fairly illustrate
| the condition in each county. The peo-
pie of Cowley county, outside OF the
| railroads therein, under Governo;
Stubbs' administration, paid about
| 100000 more taxes in 1910 than they
did in the last year of Governor Bail
ey's administration, while the railroads
paid $4,000 less. Why should this be:
The population is substantially the
same. There was no demand among
the people which caused such addition
al burden. Show us, if you please
what you have done with the money,
and the necessity to spend so much
when the population is substantially
the same.
"The people apparently were dissatis
fed with Governor Bailey's administra-
ton, because they thought it was ex
travagant, but behold the people are
confronted with the so-called progress
sive administration, which, for extrava-
istration to shame. / deny that the
people demanded such extravaganza
and expenditures, and insist that those
who have been connected with recent
legislation have forgotten that they
were servants of the people and have
assumed the role of the masters.
HOW Tax Law Works.
LET me again illustrate by taking
my country. The first three years I'M
der the new tax law the people in my
country paid over $4,000 more than
under the last three years OF the old
tax law. while the railroads therein
paid only a little over $4,000 more
and yet the population was substan-
TALLY the same. Why should this be?
You cannot lay it entirely to the new
law. 1t may not be the wisest and
best, yet under our system of taxation
it makes but little difference whether
our property is assessed at its full
value, or one-half or one-th1rd, just
So long as the assessment is equit-
able to all. The over-shadowfng
question is why the necessity to raise
so much money, ard what have you
done with it? I deny that the people
have demanded this expenditure and
extravaganza. If the people did not
connected with the legislation forget
that they were servants of the people
and assume to be the masters?
Let me again illustrate by COMPARE
son. how indifferent this so-ca1led pro-
gressive administration has been, to
the interest and welfare of the people.
The last year of Governors Bailey's
administration the total amount of the
states taxes was $2524,16f, and the
year 1911, of Governor Stubbs' admins
tration is SO, 1872, 49, 81, with the popula-
ton increased only 15 per cent in ten
years. Again let me illustrate by COM
parison. Governor Bailey's contingent
fund was 100000 each year, one year
Of which he only spent Loo of that
fund, whereas Governor Stubs con-
tingent fund has been SIC, 10000 each
year, and he has spent every cent of it.
Governor Stanley's contingent fund
was 100000 year, Governors Bailey's
was 100000, Governor Hoch's was
81 100000 a year, and none of these gov
ernors spent all of their contingent
fund. In four years Governor Stubbs
spent SAC, 10000 from the executive con-
tingent fund, whereas in ten years,
Governors Stanley, Bailey and Hoch,
have had $44, 900. 90 placed to the credit
of the executive fund, and they did
not spend all of it, so we are safe in
saying that Governor Stubs has used
more money for executive expenses in
four years than his three predecessors
did in ten years. Was he considerate |
of the interests and the welfare of the |
people, when he caused such increase |
in taxation, and was so extravagant |
with the peoples money?
Let US further illustrate by COM
parison some of the other depart |
administration, with former admins |
trationS By So doing we see that the |
attorney generals office shows an in |
crease commencing January, 1907, as
follows:
Expense Grows Rapidly.
Under General Coleman the ex-
penses in 1906 were $9,479.7s. Under |
General Jackson in 1907 it was |
81, S49.34, and continued to increase
under General jackson, when, in 1910 |
it was $19.050.O0. General Coleman's |
contingent fund for 1906 was So
10000. but the contingent fund for
General Jackson grew until in 1910 it |
was 100000. The travelling expense |
of General Coleman in 1906 was |
$272.96, but that of General jackson |
for the year 1910 was S3,551.18, and |
in addition thereto travelling expenses
of others connected with the Office |
were over 100000. We observe that |
the bank commissioners expense has
continuously increased. Under Royce, /
in 1907, it was $17,72O.00, and it in
creased under Dolley, when. for the
year 1910, it was $39,639.S1. An in
vestigation of the adjutant general |
shows marvellous increase. We no.
tice that in 1906 it was S31,7o2, and
in 1910, it was SCI, 340- The board of
railroad commissioners have also in
creased in expense. In 1906 it was
$13,702.00, and it increased continual
", when. in 1910, it was S2s, $4,000.
The state board of control shows a
surprising increase. Its expenditures
in 1906 were $11.S50.00, and it con-
tinued to increase, when. in 1910, it
was s55,264.oO. These figures are ap-
palling when we realize that we have
made no substantial increase in popu-
lation in the last four years.