Americus times-recorder. [volume] (Americus, Ga.) 1891-current, 1916-08-22

new system amounted to $36,247.33
leaving net deposit of $S4,71S.5S. This
apparent saving in the inspection Of
Fertilizer was made possible by taking
1870 less fertilizer samples for the
farmers protection than / had in 1911
To be specific, / had 1907 samples
taken in 1911, while my successors
were contented to secure only $685.
samples during 1913. After deductine
the expenses of running the pure food
department, my successor paid into the
State Treasury $19,137.62.
To recapitulate, for the two items
Just mentioned, placed in the State
Treasury, in 1911, $94,393.90; while my
successors on the same account, placed
SOB, S56.20 to the credit of the depart
ment, but as already shown they deiiv-
cred to the farmer 1870 less service
to make this showing. 1t was my con-
tention, and it is my contention now,
that this special tax, paid by the farm
er for his protection against unscrup-
ulous dealers in fertilizer, was never
intended as revenue tax. If neces-
sary for the farmers protection, every
dollar of this fund should be expended
to secure for him the protection which
he alone pays for.
| In considering the income from the
inspection of oils, let us bear in mind
that the law itself during my admins
tration, provided how and where oils
should be inspected; 1t stipulated the
fee the inspector should collect for
such inspection. and provided that
they, the inspectors, should send the
surplus in excess of the inspection fee
direct to the State Treasurer. Not one
penny of this fund ever reached the
department during my administration;
the law provided differently The same
general principle held good during the
administration of my successors, ex-
cept the General Assembly had mate
rally reduced the inspection fee for
service rendered, and in addition, gas
oline had been added to the list of IL
Illuminating oils subject to inspection.
We, therefore. find marked advance
in the states income from the inspec-
ton of oils.
During my administration, this
source of revenue, in 1911, amounted to
only $20,500.18, as gasoline at that
time was not on the list of inspected
oils; while under the changed and ex-
tended policy, by which the law mad
fixed an inspection fee on gasoline,
under which my successors made their
report, for this item, it amounted TO
$93.121.12; thus giving my successors,
by reason of this new revenue arising
aJx 1f
1884: which represents a fund that
never received during my admins
tration. Let me again reiterate;
neither l nor my successors handled
one cent of this fund. During both
administrations, under specific pTovis-
/ ions Of law, this money is turned into
the State Treasury by the inspectors,
after they have deducted the fee al
lowed by law. All of which Mr. Crisp
should surely know.
Therefore, in comparing the admin
istrative efficiency of the department,
only the moneys received from the sale
of fertilizer tags, and from the sale of
food tags can justly be compared, and
in making such comparison, amount of
service rendered, logically, must be
considered in the relation of the ex-
! penditures for such service. / have al
ready made this comparison, and invite
you to turn back to the paragraph.
But, No! I'll state it again.
In 1911, turned into the State
1 Treasury, after deducting all legitimate
expenses for the inspection of fertil-
izer, $74,31024; / gathered, for anal
ysis, 1907 samples. In 1913, under
| the new law, my successors secured
only 9,525 samples of fertilizer, and
managed to place $S4,71S.5S in the
State Treasury, in excess of actual ex-
penses incurred in inspection. / man
aged to place surplus, S20,0S366;
my successors, from the same source,
the pure food division, only placed $19,-
1882 to the credit of the department
in the State Treasury. Now, Mr..
Crisp, make the calculation for your
self, and ascertain if these figures do
! not show that under my last admins
tration l turned into the State Treas
TRY the sum total from these two
sources, after having paid all expenses,
the sum of $94, 1880, and that my sue
cessors, after paying all expenses from
these two sources, turned over to the
State Treasurer the sum of $103, 856. 46 /,
subtract the amount turned in from
the amount my successors turned in,
and you will find balance in favor of
my successors administration of So
461.56. 1t has already been shown, as
taken from the records, that | took 49,
OH samples of fertilizer, as against
9,525 taken by my successors, showing
that l exceeded him in efficiency to the
amount of 1926 samples, which at a
cost of 1895 per sample, as shown by
the auditors report to the investigat-
ing committee, would amount to $10,-
Sol 40; take the balance of $9,461.56 in
favor Of my successors from this
amount, and it leaves a balance of
/ $S39.84 in favor of my administration.
Now, Mr.. Crisp, WHY ARE YOU TELL
ING THE PEOPLE OF THE THIRD
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT DIS
TRICT THAT I SQUANDERED $110,-
10000, AND, IN REALITY, ISN'T THIS
CHARGE MADE BY YOU, JUST
ABOUT AS NEAR THE TRUTH AS
ALL THE OTHERS YOU HAVE
MADE?