The Ocala evening star. [volume] (Ocala, Fla.) 1895-1943, 1919-08-04
ALDERMAN THOMAS IN ERROR
Continued from First Page)

tourist season-or at least we were
repeatedly so informed by the man
ager. We think a close examination
OF its business would show that it is
making both ends meet now. The peo-
pie who own it may be embarrassed
for cash, but as Alderman Goldman
informs US they paid out $500 in law
yer's fees on the case they are prob
ably not exactly penniless. There are
a lot of people in Ocala who would
have to surrender their property if
they had to pay a lawyer $500 to de-
fend it against a claim.
The "boneheads and smart-alecks"
Mr.. Thomas refers to must have been
Charlie Hunter, Emmett Robinson, M.
j. Roess. Ed Bennett, H. A. Fausett,
| Will Knight and others we can't re-
member, as they were the ones who
raised the valuation of property. At
that time Ocala property was as
sessed on an average of about one
| fourth of its value and the millage
was a cent and half on the dollar.
That council doubled the valuation of
property and cut the millage in half.
|
that was paying far too little and put
on the tax books some property that
was not assessed at all. The Star ap-
proved this act and maintains to this
day it was wise. This bunch of "bone-
heads" did not increase taxes. Its sue
cessors had to increase the millage in
order to pay the increased expense of
the city. Afterward, they made re-
| duction, but the present council has
again increased the millage, and is
going to increase it again. 1t has also
raised the rate on electric current and
water. We do not censure it for do
ing so; in fact we think it necessary;
but even at that the millage will not
be so high as when the "boneheads"
increased the valuation.
If this increase in valuation and re-
duction in millage had not been made,
the Ocala House taxes for three years
would have been between four and
five thousand dollars. Mr.. Thomas
omits to state that the council had
consented to reduce the Ocala House
been practically agreed to accept
$4,000 for taxes and back taxes, and
that sum would have been collected if
Mr.. Thomas and Mr.. Goldman had
stood by the decision of the majority.
Their action was perfectly legal, but
it was not in the interest of their fell
low citizens
We regret to find that Mr.. Thomas
, is a careless reader. For instance he
says:
"Now there is and has been members
of the city council who of course are
considered the Stars friends and who
don't believe have paid so per cent
of the amount of city taxes that they
should have paid, and have never yet
!, been able to see where the Star has
ever censured them or had anything
to say about them-only the very
: highest praise. But on the other hand
) the Star is forever and eternally find
ing fault and censuring some of the
city officials actions, the ones OF
course that it did not support in the
municipal election. This, / think, is
very mean and improper thing tt
do"
In saying that the Star does not
, censure its friends for not paying as
much city taxes as they should pay
Mr.. Thomas proves that his ideas botl
of the law and the province of a news
paper are crude. If we went to the
tax books and ascertained the amount
of a mans taxes and printed the in
formation in a way to bring reproacl
on that man, he would have a cleal
case of libel against this paper. W.
have no right, either legally or moral
ly, to publish such information unless
| it is issued to us officially. Some tai
matters have been aired i'll prin
lately, and the man who was prac
tically made the goat of the agitation
is one of the Stars friends and h
: and his people have been among tn
4 EDITORS personal and very goot
:. friends for twenty-five years.
If Mr.. Thomas really thinks tina
this paper picks out members of tn
r council and other city officials TO
Y criticism because it did not supper
n them as candidates, he has indeed rea,
!. between the lines and picked out line
that were too far apart. This pape
= has never followed any such polio,
and will not under it's present man
agement. 1t is it's policy to treat tn
council as whole, except in thos
= cases where a minority thwarts tn
will of the majority. This is strictl
r. correct, as any parliamentarian ca
;. tell Mr.. Thomas. We did not supper
Mr.. Thomas in the election because w
n thought his opponent would make
better alderman, and we have no
changed ouF opinion. Nevertheless
he has always had our good will, an
unless we greatly mistake we hav
" commended more than criticised hin
We would prefer to commend an
> public official. 1t is much more pleas
ant and profitable for all concerned t
be able to do so.
Mr.. Thomas wound up his littl
4 piece by saying: "But if l wa