OCR Text |
Show . , (By C. D. McNeeley) THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, IS ABSURD ; The proposed amendment to the state constitution relative to the taxation of mines is an absurd proposition and ought to be defeated at all hazards. The sentiment of this community is practically prac-tically unanimous on that matter. There is nothing fundamental about the proposed amendment and should it be adopted it would be granting to the board of equalization a dangerous power which the legislature and the state courts would have no way of affording af-fording relief . ' As we view it the whole matter is an attempt on the part of the agricultural communities to gouge the mines. The mining industry is the great asset of the state and the placing in the constitution a section which would have the effect of strangling ' the mines would be exceedingly detrimental to the future development develop-ment of the commonwealth. ' The amendment would give to the board of equalization the right to fix the tax on mines at some multiple or sub-multiple of the net earnings. In other words the board would have the right to arbitrarily assess the mines, and from its action there would be no right of appeal. If such an amendment were needed it ehould be more specific so that there would be no question as to the possible effect it might have. As it is it would open a big loophole for graft, and whatever the need for increased taxation might be we do not want any more openings for graft by public officials. Suppose the amendment should be adopted, and suppose that the equalization board should be composed of men who are ap- . proachable. Is it not reasonable to suppose that they might tax some mining properties at a minimum and others at a maximum rate in order to lay aside a little graft? The amendment invites graft and if it becomes a part of the constitution sooner or later there will arise a world of trouble over individual gain in the members of the board. We do not want a law that opens the way . for graft, and especially we do not want such a thing in the constitution. con-stitution. Once in the constitution it would be very difficult to change. 1 , Already the air is full of talk about graft. , Do we want to in-! crease the possibility for graft at this time? Perhaps there are some who do. Those who expect to profit directly or indirectly under the plan. We do not mean that all who favor the ..amendment ..amend-ment are in favor of grafting. There are many ojjits'supporters who have the best of motives, but they Harriot looked deeply into the matter or considered the dangers which might arise from ' vesting such dictatorial powers -rthe hands of mere men. ' This is not a partisjtfi question and should not and will not be so considered. It isa question between right and wrong. The amendment is wreiig in principle, and if the supporters of the measure believethat the mines should be more heavily taxed ( they ought tQevise some method which would not have a ten dency to corrupt public officials. We consider the argument oi JesseKnight unanswerable and his article on the amendment should be read by every voter of the state. Following is what -he has to say on this timely question: 5 w "The method designed in the proposed amendment for taxing mines is wrong in principle, contrary to the theory and spirit of our American government, savors of Prussianism and should be defeated by the voters of the state, regardless of political affili- ations". . ' "To delegate such powers to a board, chosen by a partisan governor and responsible to him only, would take away the rights of the people, be extremely dangerous, and might result ' , in confiscation of property. ? ' ' .5 "The amendment places no limitation whatever on the Board of Equalization in assessing net proceeds of metal mines. To ; ; confer, by the organic law of the state, such unlimited power upon an appointed board, would be infamous. "The proposed amendment was not introduced until the last . day of the legislative session indeed, several days after the constitutional con-stitutional period had expired and was passed without notice, without hearing and without due consideration. "it must be remembered that our constitutional provisions on taxation were framed after mature deliberation by a non-parti- ' san constitutional convention, chosen for that specific duty by the people, who adopted and ratified their, work. It should not be tinkered with nor amended without grave consideration and imperative necessity, which does not exist. "Mine owners and operators expect and desire to pay their proportion of all additional revenue necessary to meet the re-'' re-'' quirements of the state in general and the schools in particular. Our federal government has shown the most equitable method of taxation, namely, the income tax, both for individuals and corporations. Our constitution already provides for an income tax ; consequently, no amendment is necessary. "A state income tax will provide all the additional revenue necessary and place the burden equitably, instead of leaving such distribution to the whims and prejudices of an appointive board. "Already we are making our income returns in compliance with national law. This method has met and will meet the national na-tional requirements and is worthy of adoption by the states. "On the other hand, the proposed amendment to the constitution, constitu-tion, if adopted, would retard our development and would be the beginning of class legislation in this state, a thing most to be deplored, and would not provide a just or final settlement of the tax problem. "P.educed to plain language, it means constantly increasing powers to the board of equalization who thereby can favor their personal friends and penalize their political enemies. It is taxation tax-ation without representation in its worst form and therefore violates vio-lates every fundamental American principle. It opens an avenue for political corruption and invites graft and blackmail 1 "The principal of the national income tax appeals to the public pub-lic sense of justice, notwithstanding the heavy burdens it imposes. im-poses. "Our legislature, without constitutional amendment, has full power to enact such laws as are necessary to meet any revenue cituation and this is as it should be; thereby in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "preserving inviolate the fundamental principle, prin-ciple, that the people are not to be taxed but by representatives chosen immediately by themselves." ta In |