Increased Tax Has Failed

INCREASED TAX HAS FALLEN

To Lower the Deficit in the City Funds.

AN INCREASE OF $47,000

In Two Years Over What Was Raised Six Years Ago Has All Been Eaten Up in Expense.

According to the mayor's own figures as given yesterday the city overdraft has not been cut down any in the past two years. In fact it has increased. The extra paving that has been done has been taken care of by bonds just sold and does not enter into the increased cost of administration which has increased the overdraft.

Last year after raising up to the limit of taxation allowed by the charter the of $18,000 was raised above the limit in the bridge-culvert and crosswalk fund for the express purpose of assisting in caring for the deficit. The extra flood expenses did not eat all of this up, but other increased expenses did and instead of decreasing the deficit the mayor's figures show that the deficit has actually increased.

Besides liquor taxes and other receipts the council levied in direct taxes

In 1902...................................................$73,450

In 1901....................................................66,000

Total for two years................................$139,450

This was the tax levy for ordinary purposes outside of sewers and paving during the Copeland administration this could have nearly, if not wholly, wiped out the deficit can be shown by going back a few years and discovering what the city government was run for. Taking the years 1895 and 1896, picked simply because we happened to have the figures handy, the direct tax levies in these years were:

1895....................................................$49,860 00

1896.....................................................40,555 45

Total for two years...............................$90,415 45

In 1895, included in the above $11,500 was raised for sewers and $3,360 to pay bonds for the University hospital.

The increase in the tax levy in 1901 and 1902 was over $47,000 over the tax levy in the years 1895 and 1896. If other expenses and been kept at what they were only five or six years ago, the increase would have paid the deficit when the present administration came in, the case of building the new culverts, etc., caused by the flood, and left a small balance. If, under stress, expenses could not be kept down what would happen if more money is borrowed than needed to care for the deficit?