The Greenville journal. [volume] (Greenville, Ohio) 1850-1918, 1914-02-12
Proposed LaWWOuId Give Corrupt
Politicians a StTangIe Hold.
TAXPAYERS ARE IN REVOLT
Effort Of sociaIlstle Contingent to
Increase Taxes and Create Jobs
Has Not Been Successful So Far.
They VIII Make Another Trial.


senate amendments to the Mills bill
1t gave the taxspenders a hard blow.
The Mills bill was introduced at the
instance of Mayor Baker of Cleve-
land. who wants to make use of its
provisions to build up his waning po-
litical power and to increase the ac-
tivities Of the Socialistic wing Of the
Democratic party. The Mills bill sim
ply means jobs for the faithful and
exorbitant taxes.
In few words, the Mills bill pro-
poses giving the taxspenders author
ity to issue bonds in unlimited
amounts for the purchase of public
utilities. There is absolutely no re-
striction on the power conferred
upon the taxspenders in the matter
of the proposed bond issues. In order
to help the sale of the bonds-to
make the sales easier the taxspend-
ers propose that bonds shall be lien
upon the entire credit of city in
stead Of lien on the utility itself.
The senate, which Is dominated by
the Baker Socialistic contingent, by
mere majority succeeded in passing
the bill without limitations of any
kind carried in it. The house had
passed the measure so that bonds
could not be issued if they made the
tax rate higher than the provisions
Of the already mutilated Smith l per
cent limit law; and with a provision
making the bonds lien only on the
utility affected. The house refused
to concur in the senate's action on
the measure and now the bill goes to
a conference committee.
This means that the taxspenderS of
the larger cities, and particularly of
Cleveland, will use every effort to
club the conference committee into
accepting the Baker program.
The members of the conference
committee on the part Of the senate
are Carl Friebolin Of Cleveland, ]. ].
Wise Of Massillon and William H.
Herner of Monroeyille; for the house,
John F. Kramer of Mansfield, Don P.
Mills Of Cleveland and Thornton R.
Snyder Of Cincinnati.
The taxpayers of Ohio are interest.
ed in the move against the Mills bill,
because they are the ones who will
have to pay the fiddler II bonds are
issued for public utility purposes.
The utility owners in many sections
OF Ohio are in favor Of the measure
because it will give them a chance
to enter into deals with politicians
for the sale Of their properties al
fancy prices-and the people will
have to pay.
This measure really interests every
taxpayer--even the one in the most
remote township. The Clevland
Chamber of Commerce opposes the
measure because every time a utility
is purchased by the politicians it will
remove from the tax duplicate a big
valuation. The Cincinnati Business
Mems Club opposes the measure be,
cause 1t will give opportunity to cor
rupt politicians to get more active
than ever-and Cincinnati knows
what corruption in politics means.
All Of the newspapers in Ohio, ex
cept those dominated by Socialistic
influences, are against the Mills bill,
and nobody really is for it except
Mayor Baker of Cleveland and the
Socialistic crowd of which he Is
prominent and leading part.
The Cleveland News, an indepen.
dent paper, has this to say about the
Mills bill:
"The city hall still aims at munlci
pal ownership of all public utilities,
not to lower the rates but to control
the votes. While watching the game.
the taxpayer should remember thai
ne is expected to pay the bill. The
city hall hopes tc make him pay not
only al the taxes TIE corporations
pay noW-and the street railway COM
pany alone paid $4S5 $50 last year
but also tax rate sufficiently In
creased over the present 155 to pay
interest on public debt doubled.
tripled or quadrupled. Votes come
high"
The Cleveland Leader, also pub. |
lished in Mayor Bakers home town,
says:
1T is clearly unfair and insincere
t6F Cleveland advocates of schemes
for municipal ownership of utilities
now taxed on heavy valuations, un-
der state laws, to say that the small |
counties have no legitimate interest |
In the plans Of the municipal govern
ment, here or in other great centers'
pf population. There is a direct finan.
eial right involved.
Every big corporation displaced |
by municipal ownership would mean
the removal from the tax duplicate
OF the pB0party it owned and paid
taxes on. To that extent II would d.
minish the states share Of the taxes
paid where the property was situ-
ated. The burden thrown upon other
throughout Ohio would be
cGrrespondingly greater.
"iR the case of single company
this change would not be noticed. II
It became general 1t could not fail to
add materially to the load Of taxation
Imposed BY the state, for its own
purposes, upon the whole body Of its
taxpayers. To deny that the entire
has dire& and per.
fscty plain interest in such condi.
tions ana possibilities is ridiculous.
Often 1t is dishonest, because, the
men who make such statements
know full well that they are not true.
"And Il Is also a very grave 0ues.