The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1916-01-22

reference to the receipts and expen-
dltures of the Assessors, Clerks and
Sheriffs, for the years 1911 and 1912
and published in 1914 This report
shows that no report was made for
Grant parish, hence we must deter
mine the receipts of the Clerks office
by the amount received by other
Clerks offices in the State as shown
in the report, which may be had by
writing the Supervisor of Public Ac-
counts at Baton Rouge.
Here are some of the reports show
ing clearly that the Clerk office pays
more than the Assessors office.
ST. LANDRY PARISH.
Clerks Office, net receipts
in 1912 .................. 81, $50 70
Assessors office, net re-
ceipts in 1912. .......... 1851 SO
Balance in favor of Clerk 5000 ID
ST. MARY PARISH.
Clerks office, net receipts
in 1912 SIS, $50 So
Assessors office, net re-
ceipts in 1912. ........... 3,713 so
Balance in favor of Clerk $2,216 76
The parishes of Caddo, Claiborne
and many other parishes show the
same official reports as the ones men,
toned above with large amounts in
favor of the Clerk, and the parish of
Grant has never shown a net receipt
of So, 10000 per annum for the Asses
sor and no one knows that better than
my opponent, who tells you that the
Assessors Office pays more than
$4,0O0.00 per year"
The Clerk has copy of every tax
roll made for the parish of Grant, and
if he will take the total roll and figure
the commission allowed the Assessor,
under the law, which he also has in
the Clerks Office mot O'Quinn's of
fiice) he will find that the GROSS
RECEIPTS will not be 100000, to
say nothing-of>t the expense of clerk
hire.
My opponent speaks Of these two
Offices as if the Clerkship belonged to
him. and the Assessors office to me.
/ am not leaving the Assessors office
to run for Clerk. | have no title to
either of these offices. They belong
to the people. The people can dis
pose of them every four years as they
see fit. Because | have been Asses
sor for TWO TERMS appears to me
as reason why the people might
want to favor some other worthy son
with that Office, rather than as a rea-
son to continue me in it.
This argument applies with still
greater force to my opponent. for he
has been Clerk for four terms, sixteen
years, and now asks you to make it
twenty, or more. The argument my
opponent makes will be good as to
him for lifetime, for certainly he
would never admit that he had not
discharged the duties of Clerk of
Court.
If we as citizens accept this argu-
ment, we might as well elect or APP
point all of our officials for life and
save the expense of elections. Do
you not think, fellow-citizens, it is
time to make a change and that we
should adopt the rule advocated by
me, rotation in Office" and no man
to have more than two terms in the
same office, thus giving a chance to.
our young men and young women
now being educated in our public
schools? What are you educating
your children for? / am arguing that
the Clerks office and all other offices
should go around, and that no man
should hold any one of them for more
than two terms.
What if our Sheriff and myself, as
to the offices we now hold 1--WE have
certainly discharged our duties as well
as my opponent has discharged those
Of his) were to make the same claim