162 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE Off. Doc. 



other counties, and I believe we make a mistake when we recom- 

 mend our taking this fund and returning it again. As I said be- 

 fore, it may be slightly selfish, but I feel that it is doing no harm 

 to get from the State all that we can get from the agricultural 

 people. As I said, it may be slightly selfish to want to draw this 

 large amount that comes from Philadelphia and Pittsburg and all 

 those large cities that goes into the State Treasury. Now if we 

 recommend this, and the Legislature passes it, it is done at the 

 recommendation of the agriculturists themselves, and takes money 

 away from them, as I know we do not have a very large amount 

 compared with what we need. I thought it would be wise to take 

 this up in order that it might be fully discussed. 



ME. KAHLER: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say this, that while 

 the gentleman objects to the money being retained in the boroughs 

 and cities, he must recollect that we are not the only people that 

 sacrifice. A great many people pay some of the taxes in these 

 towns. As a rule, our towns are paying a heavier local tax than 

 we are. Now why not retain that? The State is not in absolute 

 need of it by any means; the revenues of the State are immense, 

 and in a great many boroughs it is a material help to their local 

 taxation to have this amount of money retained in their counties, 

 and I think we should have it, for the traffic which costs thousands 

 of dollars every year to defend criminal cases — that grows out of 

 this traffic, and from which we get very little benefit. 



MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, that don't really benefit the agri- 

 cultural part of the county at all. We have in Somerset county 

 probably three townships that have licensed houses and that pay a 

 very small amount into the county treasury or into the State Treas- 

 ury and I think fifty per cent, is returned. That amounts to very 

 little in a township, and it is the boroughs where the licenses are 

 paid and returned to them, that get the benefit, while the rural dis- 

 tricts which help to keep up the saloons — they send their boys in 

 to drink — and there is no return except misery. 



MR HERR: Mr. Chairman, I think it is a misapprehension to 

 talk about selfishness. I do not think that the benefits should be 

 confined to the cities and boroughs instead of our rural districts, 

 if benefits flow from these license taxes. I know that in our county 

 we do not get a bit of it; the share of it that goes into the State 

 Treasury should benefit us and I think we can with propriety ask 

 for an increased appropriation for our school and road funds. It 

 does not help us to pay costs of these criminal cases either. It 

 is retained there as a borough fund, really, and not as a county 

 fund. It is returned there, as I understand it, into districts in which 

 the licensed houses are located; if that is so, it don't benefit our 

 rural districts. Now it is an immense fund and I do not think you 

 need to consider the interests of the boroughs and cities, I think 

 they are quite able to take care of themselves. 



MR. BOND: Mr. Chairman, isn't it the object of this motion to 

 remedy that defect? Is it not the intention of that amendment to 

 have the money refunded to the county treasurer? The resolution 

 that has been passed in all meetings that I ever had any interest in 



