OCR Text |
Show COMMUNICATIONS j 4 ; ; Editor Tribune Dear Sir: In this morning's issue I read with interest your comments on the mine tax law just passed, and, personally, T can indorse all you say, except the portion wherein the motives of country members are questioned ques-tioned as regards their votes for a flat three times net proceeds of mines. I am quite willing- to believe that those who held firmly to the flat three times proposition were honest in their conclusions, con-clusions, while I felt from the very first vote taken that the proposition was not just , what it should be. I am positive that the mines would have paid their just share of taxes if the law had passed at not to exceed three times the net proceeds, pro-ceeds, as the kind of men chosen on the board of equalization would, if necessary, have maintained the three times proposition. propo-sition. Anyone acquainted with the mining' min-ing' game knows that, while there are vast fortunes made, there are also vast fortunes for-tunes lost in .the struggles of development. It is also true that the money recovered from mines is not lost to the tax rolls of the state, as is evidenced by the erection erec-tion of such splendid structures as grace Main street, Salt Lake City; as also the palatial residences in other parts of this and other cities throughout the state, which stand out so prominently that the tax gatherer can have , no difficulty in reaching their taxing values, which will go on for generations yet to pftme, while the mines from which it was recovered by the faith and energy of these men w-hose faith in the great west brought such splendid results will be all but forgotten, for-gotten, .1 do not believe that the people of this great state have any desire to' tax the mines beyond the mark of justice. I personally per-sonally know that in eastern Utah my constituents only asked that the suggestions sugges-tions of the letters sent out by Governor Bamberger just before election in 1918 be adhered to. His remarks in the letters let-ters referred to were to the effect that he would recommend to the 1919 legislature legisla-ture that it pass a measure to tax the net proceeds of mines not to exceed three times. His attitude all through this matter mat-ter has been both fair and consistent, and' T feel that when the joint committee of the house and senate finally came together to-gether upon the flat three times proposition proposi-tion and the final vote placed it at three flat, the governor did exactly the right thing. The yean 1921 will', determine whether or not the right thing has been-done, been-done, and, if not, it will be the duty of the 1921 legislature to right this wrong, just as each successive legislature rights the wrongs of its predecessor. I just wish to sav that I have faith in the integrity in-tegrity and fairness of the minmg men of the state, and am willing to give them the credit they so richly deserve in the growth and development of this great state. And I am sure that if any mistake mis-take has been made in this mine tax law the good people of the state will be -glad to rectify the matter as soon as it is known. As a state, we are proud of our mines and have no desire for their destruction. Respectfully, WM. O'NEIL. Member Thirteenth' Session Utah Legislature. Legis-lature. March 23, 1919. March 21, 1919. Editor Tribune: "While I do not appear on your subscription list am a daily reader of 'vour paper and have followed very closelv vour attitude on th6 question of a leoguo of nations. On thn 13th clay of this month I forwarded to Senator Borah the original of the enclosed letter, and some of my friends have requested me that it be published. While I am perfectly willing to admit that our representatives should form opinions on the question I am not willing that meti shall commit myself and others oth-ers to a policy of rejection without any effort being made to determine that opin-1 opin-1 ion. I note that he has further slated ne will refuse to consent to the treaty by ! rpason of his concluding England is try-! try-! ins to "rivet a straitjacket on small ; coir. muni ties'-' and it seems to me high i time that some senators were made aware that the autocracy of the senate is becoming be-coming goading. I have taken an active part in political mattery and was slate senator from Fremont Fre-mont county two yours ago, so that I am not unkr.cwn in the. community. St. Anthony, .Idaho, March l'i, 1919. Hon. W. E. Korah, IJniled States Senator, Sena-tor, Washington, D. C. My Dear Senator: I am in receipt under un-der frank, copy of a speech delivered by you on 'Americanism" in tho United States senate, February 1, 1919. I had read the speech l'rcm Ihe Congressional Record and formed some opinion of the same. A mnng other topics you r-ta te to thn effeet that you do rot hold any authority au-thority from the people as "principal" tn aeeept the treaty or draft, of the league of rations, and 1 may add as :l neu..'-ary fnllowi r:g no a mhnrit y t? r. y-ct it ; o I tak. Lhi;; opportunity to r-xnress for my .-'If my own views In rei'ili'jri to i he i treaty, and if my findings and ytate- ments may appear to be rather harsh it is becauso I love my country" better than political parties and fee! with you that this is a .very momentous period in jur history arid for the present civilization. A time when the spirit of the people is th'j moving factor rather than the legal phrases that go to make up a code of conduct called a treaty. That instead of the treaty outlining the sentiments or aspirations of peoples, the sentiments of peoples shall be outlined in the treaty. The common people are interested In the spirit rather than the letter; and I shall not pose, nor am I willing to pose, as a specialist in treaty-making, but can only generalize or. this situation. Your entire speech may be summed up as an objection to the treaty for league i of nations in its entirety. Taken in con- neclion with a fcti.tement given through the press, "That if the Savior came here and advocated a league of nations, you would oppose It," to me places you irrevocably irrev-ocably against any league of nation? treaty to enforce peace, and it seems impossible im-possible to escape this finding in connection connec-tion with your refusal to meet the presi-; dent at the White House ard discuss the sa?ne, which, to me. places your attitude beyond the pale of discussion. In view of your previous statement That you have not received any authority from the people, "the principal," leads me to ask if senators are not acting with a large amount of personal presumption by the situation in the chamber and on public platforms. As "agent" for the people ot" Idaho shall we understand that we are committed by your action to a policy of rejection, or do you appear on platforms as a citizen of the state of Idaho, for as yet I am not awaro of any effort being made by you to obtain the opinion of the people of this state. I do not know that myself and family fam-ily (one returned soldier among them) favors a league of nations, I know that many of my neighbors favor a league of nations, and I feel positive that my town favors a league of nations up to $0 or 90 per cent, in fact I am not aware of any one person I have conversed with that does not favor a league of nations; so that in view of your statement of wishing to represent or be "agent" for tne people, peo-ple, my question is as to your information informa-tion or authority for the position you have taken. I think It safe to say that the people will be heard on the question and using one of the commonplaces of the times. I think that senators had better get their ear to the ground for the rumblings, for to my way of thinking the common people are not half as interested in xhe success of any political party two years hence as they are in that a similar condition of war shall not occur again in this generation. genera-tion. Your position, senator, in asking a vote of the people, is rather badly handicapped handi-capped by your position of not asking a voice, of the people on the suffrage question, ques-tion, for I have found that the people are not so much interested in the avenue of suffrage as they are in ihe fact of wishing wish-ing the women to vote. The proper time for conscientious objectors ob-jectors to any entangling alliances was when the president asked congress to declare de-clare war. At that time yourself and .others were in a position to have staiea. We believe going into Europe with an army of men to engage in war is an en-langling en-langling alliance as set forth by George Washington, that we refuse to vote war or supplies for the same, that we advocate advo-cate a withdrawal of all commerce from Ihe seas, and will obey Count Bernstorff's injunction to stay home. Th;s would have been the proper time for the conscientious conscien-tious objector and wo did find objectors who suffered a term of imprisonment for their opinion. To me it seems idle to assume as-sume that we could take all the force of l Vie American nation across the seas, destroy de-stroy legal governments, then withdraw and leave chaos and rufn behind us. I can imagine nothing more er.:angling than fighting, to me the making of peace does not seem tc havo the entanglements of war. We aro daily sending men to jail who advocate the destruction of property for an adjustment of grievances, to wit, 1. W. W. and anarchists. To me there 1.5 no difference if we :ve now to run for home and. leave Europe to its ruin, and refuse to particirr-te in building something some-thing better, r.or can I Imagine that it is the mission of democracy simply to destroy. de-stroy. After reading your objections with care I am ui.fl-io to find any one of them a.v serious us leaving the conditions In Europe Eu-rope simply a mass of ruins, both as to governments and people, as you advocate. advo-cate. I fail to find any objection offered bv you that would make me doul.t the advisability of the league, nor o;n f nil to mind any of the renins dernoeraeiey of Knrnp,'. that has either the design or the ale'lliy to rwider conditions at home dan-!.-r-;ijM: nnd havn coneluded that wh.it--i.' .-. .mejit rUwe was in the rdorfe iioe- trine it was cast to the four winds of heaven when covtgTess voted to declare war, taking American soldiers to foreign soil and under foreign commanders. What useful purpose would it hav served to notify Germany that we would invoke the Monroe doctrine .when their submarines were operating on our coast. Did we depend on the. doctrine or our own submarines? With a stronger force we could defeat the Cermans in Belleau wood or on our own shores whether with or without the doctrine. It is nothing more than a statement that we would resist the advent on this continent of any method of government that we considered inimical to our own, and we shall do this whether we have the doctrine or aio; so that to me it is idle to endanger the possibility pos-sibility for a league of nations to enforce peace, as I think the league will be a better bet-ter safeguard than the doctrine. I have read most of the speeches made by prominent-senators from the Congressional Congres-sional Record; I have r.ot to this found an objection of such a nature as 'wouid cause me to doubt the propriety ot having a league to enforce peace. There is no question as to Its outliving its usefulness, as to some portions, so have portions of the constitution, for the rights of today become the wrongs of tomorrow. Yery sincerely yours. THOMAS ELLIOTT. ' |