receive under this program. Of course, the law itself placed considerable
restrictions upon the use of these new revenues, but we wanted to learn
how the receipt of them would affect the overall financing of the sub-
divisions. The response we received from the inquiries we sent out varied
from lengthy and detailed reports to—in only one instance, I believe—
no response at all.

In the letters I sent out to local governments, I noted that this new
program of increased financial assistance to Baltimore City and the coun-
ties was the most far-reaching one that had been initiated since 1947.
And therefore, I said, it was important that we attempt to assess and
evaluate fully its results and ramifications. The replies indicated that
the additional financial aid from the State was used for a variety of
purposes, but chiefly to raise the salaries of teachers and otherwise im-
prove local educational systems. Other uses reported included pay in-
creases for policemen, firemen and jail guards; the improvements of
roads and public landings; planning and zoning; the subsidization of
volunteer fire companies; debt services; public libraries; public recrea-
tion, and so on. In a few instances, counties used the increased State
aid to reduce their local property tax rate.

This program to relieve the heavy financial burdens of local govern-
ment gave assistance to Baltimore City and the counties in three ways.
First, it increased State aid for education by increasing grants for current
expenses and for school construction. Second, it placed a limit equal to
10 cents per $100 of assessable property on the contributions by the
subdivisions to public welfare programs, thereby relieving local expense
for this purpose. Finally, it established a uniform State-wide tax on
cigarettes, with the subdivisions getting all of the increased revenues
involved.

In their effect, these three categories of additional State assistance
should be considered separately. The extra funds in aid to education
are earmarked for that purpose. Their use, however, permitted local
governments to increase teachers' salaries and make essential improve-
ments in their educational systems without placing unbearable tax
burdens upon property owners. The revised program of assistance for
public welfare increased the State's liability in that field and decreased
the local responsibility for public welfare. With the cigarette tax, it is
simply the question of the State's levying and collecting a tax, all of
which is distributed to the subdivisions. Though diverse in nature., they
all accomplish the same purpose. In their varying ways, they have
allowed the local governments to stabilize their financial systems and

543