The public ledger. [volume] (Maysville, Ky.) 1913-1968, 1921-10-19
THAT LEVY REDUCTION

Pointing out that there is fallacy in
spent by Mr. A. L. Gascocks nfmary the period
from March, 1920 to April 1921 because only 22O29 is derived
from the tax levy for nfrmary purposes the Daily Independent in
oday issue endeavors to aud the Democratic candidate for
ducon in the levy for the nfmay since became chairman OF
that institution a member of the Mason Fiscal Court
In its article the Independent fails to give Mr. Gscock credit
for making money whatever the nfmary splendid 3O
farm and reduces the fixed by the Public Ledger
the income from direct nfrmary taxation from $3.50 to 22029
fails take into consideration any income whatever except that
derived from the four cent levy only refusing to recognize that
the farm brings the lnmary fund any cash. but also failing
give the state credit for its regular allowance for ncOmpeten
and other incomes which into the Inrmary fund swelling
la point far above that reached by direct taxation
The Independent endeavs reduce the per capita places
lit $3.50 This considerably lower than the Public edgers
Ures but accepting their figure average families
Mason county who could stand the $3.50 per member
week for the absolute necessities life and the thinking heads
Of families in Mason county will consider this figure
record proud to claim
The Independent appears be proud that the
rmay levy has been reduced hundred dollars
during the period Of Mr. GascOck service Commissioner Let
take look at the assessment against which this levy has been
charged and how much has actually been saved the taxpayers
county by the reduction of levy of which the Independent
Mr. Glascock appear to be quite proud
The assessment for Mason county outside the City of Mayvc
which city is not taxed for nfmary purposes during the four
which Mr. Gacock has served Commissioner follows
19l8-$11 656,132.
|
1920 17214,1sS
1921 1774S,091.
These figures do include the franchise assessments upon
which the 1nfimary levy is also taxed
From these figures will be that despite the fact that the
levy for Mr. Gascock nma has been reduced cents on the
one hundred dollars the lesser levy 1921 has delivered him
much larger than the larger levy produced 1918 Is Mr.
ascock proud the fact that the county
property has been increased giving him the opportunity
the levy for nrmay purposes assessment increase
Of more than six millions of dolarsY
N Its CONCLUSION the Independent again returns the
saying that $4,000 for road purposes spent April 1920
APRIL 1921 and ntmatng that this of money was spent on
Judge Purnes checks before the members of the Fiscal Court knew
anything about it. If Mr. Glascock elected by people of Mason
county sat in Fiscal Court and permitted the expenditure of
before knowing anything about he possessed of such ability
as county, like Mason should have its County Judge nor is his
record supervisor of the couys fiscal affairs so splendid Bu
then Mr. ascoek does not assume his responsibility matters
AS matter of fact all checks for are issued and signed
BY the County Road Supervisor agent of the Fiscal Court elected
by them and then counersgned by the County Judge