The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-04-12
THE STATE DEBT.
New York City's share In the Work Of
Creating II.

To TIrE EnlTuR OF THE SCS--Str. The
discussion in the metropolitan press OF
= direct state INK seems to proceed gen
orally along the Ines that such tax is
.evI"d by tac LEGISLATURE ut the expense
Of the ely Of New York and that the up
stat" representatives take but little In
tcrest in the amount levied because the
city pays 80 large a share.
The idea that an upstate member OF
the Legislature receives any commenda-
tiuu from his farmer constituent upon
th- imposition Of a state tax, no matter
how small the farmers share may be. Is
entirely erroneous The farmer diss<in-
h',s his joy at a state tax as success
ally as does resident OF the city OF
New York, The upstate rcsiucn; feels
the great burden OF taxation is due
mainly to the action OF the city OF New
York and bases such feeling on the fol-
lowing facts:
In lSg3 the state debt was only $3.50.
being the balance OF the old canal debt.
Since that time bond issues have been
authorized by referendum to the voters
tu the amount NJ S@39. SOC, 900, Of which
bonds thus authorized there were out
standing at the date of the last report
Of the state Comptroller Sli9 500. 500
The balance OF the bonds j. vet 10 be
ssu.d
provided FOR a $4,000. 600 canal i'm
pryNrmout. This WaS carried by a ma
lolltS OF i4,ij3, al ~ which came from
tn D.tY Of New York, and Of which ma
iottv New York county contributed
2".6l3. Tn" second referendum, in 1908.
was the issuance of SOL 100000 barge
canal bonds. The majority in Greater
New York for this proposition was 3>H,-
al. The upstate majority against the
proposition was l33,IJN.
In 1910 q referendum was had upon
the issuance Of $2,,oo.o0O bonds for
Palisades Park Reservation. New York
city gave 1922 majority for such
bond Issur. upstate gave lOl.2 ma
iorty against such bond issue. In 1911
IN, referendum for the issuance OF SO
>On 0nn Of bonds for canal terminals
was submitted and carried by a ma
jority Of I.tl6, New York city gave
\'.%27 majority for this proposition and
upstate gave S3.all majority against II.
So, of an authorized bond issue OF
s232,300o0o We ind that the people up
state gave adverse majorities against
the Issuance of si32.30O 900.
This leaves only the highway i'm
provement bonds to he accounted for.
Tn" first proposition was submitted in
1908 and the majority for the issuance
OF tho $50 o00. 600 then voted upon was
-hh. hu' votes, or Vnlcn New lOfR clty
contributed 1868. on the second $50
10000, authorized in 1914 the najority
was 356 2S3, ot which New York city
contributed 1926
In the budget for the ensuing year.
which the present proposed tax levy Ii
10 meet will ia an item of $500 900 for
the expense of tho Constitutional Con-
vention This proposition was submitted
10 the people AT special election and
was reported as carried by n majority
of 1853 Greater New York gave $500
majority for this convention and up
state gave sass majority against the
convention.
The sinking fund requirement. FOR
the ensuing year, according 10 the report
of the state Comptroller, are $685.. e
$3.50, which will be- included in the
budget for which the present tax Is lev
ed and most OF which Is due solely to
the action Of the voters ~ Greater New
York
am not commenting on the wisdom
~ any Of these bond issues, but merely
desire to call attention TO the fact that
every one Of them was made with the
approval Of the voters OF the city of
New York.
LArArErTx r. GLEASON.
Nrw YoRK. April 10.