The Celina Democrat. (Celina, O. [Ohio]) 1895-1921, 1914-07-24

the property of incorporated com
panies.
Under this law the commission has
authority 10 prescribe the numbers OF
districts, the number OF men and
their salaries, and the wisdom of that
is shown by the records, which dis
close that 1866 deputies listed real es'
tate and personal property for 1914,
and the last time that both classes oil
/ property we're assessed under the old
| elective system. there were 3,4l5 as.
SCISSORS In the field 10 assess personal
property and 2,465 TO list real estate,
n total OF $3.50 as compared to 1866
this year. The figures presented TO
the tax commission by the various
county auditors show that II cost
Sl,777,95S to make the last quadren'
NAL appraisement of real estate un.
der the old system in 1912 the sum
OF S596,SSl was expended for listing
personal property. The tax commits
sion is authority for the statement
that the work will be done this year
for approximately $4,000 less.
One OF the reasons for the great re.
duotion in the number OF persons list
ing property that has been made this
years is disclosed in the following fig.
ures:
In Hamilton county in 1918 there
were 413 assessors last year as against
SO this year.
In Franklin county there we're SO
assessors last year as compared to 81
this year.
In Montgomery county there we're
Ga assessors last year as compared
to 33 this year.
In the city of Toledo there were 81
assessors last year as compared to 20
this year.
In the city OF Cleveland there were
40 assessors last year as compared
to 40 this year.
Change Was Propitlous.
That a change in Me method OF
listing property came at a propitious
moment no one will deny who studies
the significance of events without
prejudice. II the Warnes law had not
been installed this year, the Smith /
per cent tax law would have been de-
stroyed, or a number of Ohio cities
would have hopelessly defaulted on
their obligations. There is no escape |
from this opinion in the light of pres.
ent facts, and this not only reveals |
the moral but the economic aspects of |
the new law. IL was pointed out by |
every scientific survey made in the
state for years past that the rural
communities were making a fairer le-
turn o. property for taxation than the
cities. Since a state levy was made
for universities and other purposes, 1t
can be seen to what extent the ele
ment of unfairness entered in these
contrasted practices as between the
cities and rural communities. II
there had been no state levy, then it
would not have been a matter of state
concern what the cities did-meas-
ured by the ethical code only-but
there is now presented an entirely
new situation. The cities have been
so lax and inefficient in the listing of
property under the old moribund sys-
tenn that a serious condition of affairs
exists in most nicipalities-partic-
llarly the larger ones. The growth of
the cities has entailed vast necessi-
ties in the extension of public works
and the installation of new utilities.
That wealth has increased also can
not be denied, and yet the tax dupli-
Gates do not show the proportionate
Increase that they should, the result
being that many cities have borrowed
money to pay current bills, while in
some instances bonds have been sold
or the same purpose. Confronted
With the limitations in the tax rate OIL
he one hand and the cost of local gov
increasing vastly greater {
han the duplicate has grown, on the
,ther, there was either an enforced
racture Of the l per cent law or mu- [
licipal bankruptcy as a certain even
uality.
Fortunately, the Warnes law averts
crisis.
AS matter of very grave interest
o the state. and bearing pertinentiy :
nd directly on the question of mu
icipal distress, it is deemed fitting to
resent an exhibit of conditions in i
ONE Of the Ohio cities. II private
oncern were compelled to pay every
ear on its debt sum approaching 5O
er cent of its income, it would not I
ong remain out of the hands of re- =,
eiver, and yet, >ofiicial statistics dis =
lose this deplorable condition in :.
lany places. The following munich =,
alities are paying yearly in interest =
nd sinking fund charges, the percent :.
ges Of their gross tax revenues as in -
icated: :,
Per ct. -
Franklin county .......... so D
oledo, Lucas county ................ So G.
ayton, Montgomery county ......... As \
kron, Summit county .............. AZ 4
ewark, Licking county ............ Ga -
orwood, Hamilton county .......... 45 u
lliance, Stark county ....,......... 43 IL
indlay, Hancock county ............ AZ {
assillon, Stark county ............. a n
lqua, Miami county ............... Al "
onton, Lawrence county ........... AZ u
Iffin, Seneca county ...........,.... 48 n
Sandusky county .......... 40 W
astoria, Seneca county ............ A o;
arberton, Summit county ......... so ..
elaware, Delaware county ......... AZ u
llem, Columbiana county ......... Al ell
lies, Trumbull county ............. So Il,
Logan county ......... 60 =,
orwalk, Huron county .............. 4G u
elsville, Columbiana county ....... As re