The Greenville journal. [volume] (Greenville, Ohio) 1850-1918, 1915-01-14

on political favoritism than by elim1-
mating lump sum" appropriations
and framing it's appropriation bills so
that their terms are clear, specific and
unmistakeable. This whole subject
is ably discussed by the auditor of
state in his report for 1913 Up. 14-1S).
What is there said on the subject Of
specific appropriations as we'll as the
recommendations by this same Off
cial in his report for 1914 (p. $3.50
touching the change in the budget sys-
tenn is heartily approved and the facts
and the arguments stated by him in
connection with these two subjects
are especially commended for your
consideration. The further recon-
mendations of the auditor Of state
(Report of 1914-p. 35-3S) relative to
the establishment of state purchas-
ing department are worthy of your
most serious attention. From the logic
of the situation and from the expert
ence already had by this state, and by
the United States government in the
establishment of a general supply com
mittee, it is confidently believed some
steps in this direction would lead to
great saving Of the public funds.
Taxation.
Intimately akin to the problem of
economy just considered is the ques-
ton of method Of assessment of prop
erty for taxation. From the days of
Magma Charta and the Bill of Rights
down to this very moment the ques
tion of taxation has been of the great
est interest to every self-goverEing
people, SinguIarly enough the Ameri-
can Revolution itself grew out of this
very matter The then king of Eng
land insisted not only that his govern
ment should levy the taxes but also
that he should appoint the officials
who were to assess the property for
ia. .lation. He insisted that his ap-
pointed taX-gatherers would be more
efficient than those chosen by the peo-
pie; he urged that it was inadvisable
to have the taxing officials responsible
to the people but that they should be
responsible to him alone. But the peo-
pie did not take kindly to tA.9 argu-
ment and the American Revolution
was the result Thus born out of a
taxation controversy the United States
has always upheld the doctrine that
taxation is a question which should
be kept under the immediate contpol
of the people. Experience as well as
instinct teaches the people of Ohio
that there is no more certain way Of
building up autocratic centralized
power than by surrendering control OF
taxation matters. These involve not
only the method and amount of taxa
ton but also the valuation of property
which is the basis of all taxation. Our
present system provides that those
who levy the taxes and make the
charges which are to be met by taxa
tion shall be elected by the people
but that those who fix the value Oi
property for taxation shall be ap
pointed by some central authority re
mote from the people. The agency
which fixes values for taxation is as
important as the agency which fixes
rates; the power of the people is gone
if either agency is entirely beyond
their control; appointment of taxing
officials is the emblem of authority
first seized by those ambitious fol
strongly centralized government. Up
on what theory of government consist
1 ent with American ideals can it bt
maintained that some central author
ity here in the state Capitol can ap
point better taxing officials for the
counties and townships than the peo
pie themselves can elect? Why
should the state be divided into al
legged taxing districts" unless it b'
to evade a clear requirement of th'
constitution providing that county off