OCR Text |
Show VICIOUS PRECEDENT PROPOSED State money, Btatc time nnd the labor of state cm-ploycs cm-ploycs arc being used by the stntc board of equalization for clcctioriccrine purposes. The propngnndn is being operated in the interest of n proposed amendment to the constitution, nnd not for nny candidate, but if such n vicious vi-cious precedent is established the time is not remote when state funds and time will be used to promote the chances of candldntcs for public office. Salt Lake's Tribune Tri-bune editorially says that the members of the bonrd, from the very outset, have displayed a most offensive activity to put through their unfair and preposterous amendment. In the legislature they lobbied to hnvc the amendment submitted to a vote of the people because it increased their powers, while practically taking all power out of the hands of the county commissioners nnd county iiBBCBsors in taxing mnttcrs. Not content with their success in getting the nmendment before the qualified electors of the Htate, they now utilize the state's funds, time nnd Inbor to pull the wool over the eyes of the voters. The specious plea of the equalizers is that the statement state-ment printed and circulated nt the expense of the taxpayers tax-payers is an explanatory review of the amendment. As n matter of fact it is a biased and incomplete statement from the board of equalization printed in one of the local newspapers at their request. It tries to answer some of the objections rniscd to the amcntlmcnt, nnd so explains the terms of the nmendment as to convey the impression thnt it would be in the interest of the people ti adopt it as a part of their fundamental law. Moreover, the statement state-ment is sent out under the heading, "Tax Amendment Equalizes Kates," although the contention of its op ponents taxpayers of the Htate Is thul it creates glaring glar-ing Inequalities. To further hoodwir.!. tho otcrs, the members of the board append to the printed statement a note which says: "We hnvc no personal interest in the matter, nnd thin communication is Intended only by way of explanation to the public." C. S. Vnrinn, who wns n member of the constitutional convention, performed n public service when he pointed out the flaws nnd injustices of the nmendment, but his statement is clearly a plea for the defeat of the amendment. amend-ment. Tho plea Hcnt out by the bonrd is quite ns clenr n bid for the ndoption of the amendment, and so fearful arc the members of letting .the cat out of the bag that they neglect to incorporate in their statement an explanation ex-planation showing that their own powers would be increased in-creased to despotic proportions nnd that the powers of the county authorities would be reduced to a minimum. If the state's money is to be expended for publicity advocating ad-vocating the amendment, it would be only fair to publish statements attacking the amendment. But tho true ethic of the case is that no publicity, cither for or ngninst the nmendment, should be sent out nt the expense of the taxpayers. If a ntatc board can use the state's money for electioneering, elec-tioneering, what is to prevent county boards from using public funds for their personal and political advantage? What is to prevent public officials from conducting n publicity campaign in their own behalf throughout their ndmlnlstrntions, so thnt when the time comes for the primaries they may have ingratiated themselves with the voters nt the-stntc's expense? The board, however, is In danger of being hit by ita own boomerang. The voters will nsk nnd will be justified in nsklng whether 'the nmendment is such n bad one that it needs funds taken from tho public treasury to bolster It up. They will suspect that if it cannot stand on its own merits without such aid it is fundamentally vicious. |