Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-07-23
HxATrsvILLI: AND IT'S SINGLE TAX
Comments on the Meeting OF Tuesday Night
and the Arguments Set Forth.


from taxation and thatof improvements he said
he would simply state that the house was part
and parcel Of the realty belonging TO tho land
on which IL was built, and If the former was
exempted from taxation the latter should also
be free from assessment The S4S0 Lost IN tax
alton by the adoption Of the newsystem, which
Mr.. Ralston had claimed would amount to .
mere dross in comparison to the glory the town
would achieve, was . nonsensical statement, al
$500 would gravel the road in front Of his (Alr.
Latimer's) house, which was sadly in need of
repair.
A single tax opponent remarked that he
thought 1t only right and proper for the single
tax commissioners and the supporters Of that
measure to hold a meeting last night and have
their innings, as they were denied hearing at
the recent meeting Of the opposite faction, and
that he was Of the opinion that Mr. Ralston had
made u strong and able argument in defense Of
bis cause. Another anti-single tax man stated
that he did not see how the majority Of the
board could satisfactorily explain their actions,
as they had sprung an Objectionable measure
upon the people without consulting them in the
matter, and when asked by two-thirds Of the
citizens who had supported them at the recent
election to rescind their order or resign, had
emphatically refused to do so.
REVIEW OF MR.. RALsrox's SPEECH.
Appointment opponent of the new system when
interviewed today gave tho following opinion
OF Mr.. Ralston's speech:
~ have read Mr.. Ralston's argument made at
the single tax meeting Thursday night and,
speaking without any prejudice, every state
ment made by the gentlemen In the preceding
boards Of commissioners regarding their inno-
cence and culpability in the object Of Mr..
Raisson in suggesting and framing legislation
looking to the passage Of an order exempting
improvements is corroborated and established
by his own recital OF the history Of the matter.
He stated that these gentlemen had exempted
personal property from taxation and the citi-
zcns made no outcry thereat and asked what
the difference in principle Is between exempting
personal property and Improvements on land.
there Is no difference in principle between
them, there Is, however, an tnsuperable differ
ence between administrative and economical
policy and expedienoy. As q matter Of ab-
stract principle the government has no more
right to tax liquor for revenue than it has
to tax bread, and yet no man can success
fully contend that 1t IL not wise as q
governmental policy and immeasurably more
equitable as among al the citizens that liquor
should be taxed and bread be free. But aside
from this example, the facts in the case which
induced the gentlemen to exempt personal
property were that 1t cost the town about $2S
to levy and collect about $26 of personal tax
and they wisely concluded-and even then only
upon CONSULTATION with and the encouraging
approval Of Mr.. Ralston himself that they had
the legal right-that the 90 over and above the
cost Of collection was not worth the inquisi-
torial tax; besideSit was notorious that no citi-
zen thought himself too high nor too low to
evade II IL possible. Now, stick q pin right
there, for it does seem to me that that effect
lively disposes Of the alleged inconsistency of
the gentlemen in this matter In that particular.
That the passage OF the order was surprise to
these gentlemen, as It was to every citizen, no
man can doubt, save he be so enZealed In the
personal behalf Of Mr. Ralston to be blind.
MIR. Ralston stated that he had a list OF thirty
names in favor of the order, eight Of whom,
however, had signed resolutions disappearing
the order. Assume these figures to be correct,
any thirty in the first place, and the list is less
than majority Of the greatest number Of votes
cast at the election at which the present board
were elected and only about half Of the number
Of votes cast for him. II twenty-five names
be tho correct number, the presumption Of
Mesers. Ralston, Long and Britt In misrepre-
senting moro than two-thirds Of those whp voted
at their election becomes simply q willful act to
carry into practice their own individual opin-
ions, and is totally lacking in the very quintes-
sence Of representation. Mr. Ralston stated
that Hyattsville will lose about S45e this year
by reason OF the order and he found more than
compensatory returns for the loss Of money in
the notoriety he has thrust upon the town. The
streets will remain unimproved, the pavements
will decay and disappear and the weeds wet with
dew will lean their heads together over the
passer by and disgust even o single taxer, but
not cent will notoriety put in the town Golfers.
What Is the notoriety? Some doubtless we'll
meaning men. advocates Of single tax, write
letters and kilograms to Mr.. Ralston informing
him that the reputation of Hyattsville is made.
Well, there are regulations and regulations,
but have failed to sec the material remunera-
tions therefrom and shall continue to believe
that 1t has cost the town this year $3.50 and its
peace and unity for time to come to undergo
Mr.: Ralston's fad and Messrs. Britt and Longs
whim."
Mr.. R. Ford Combs one e. the counsel en-
gagged by the anti-single tax men said that he
thought that the legal fight would be long,
bitter and protracted one, but would be eventu-
ally won by the citizens opposed to the adoption
Of the new system.
THE oYrIcE-HoLpINo COMMISSIONERS.
Mr.. L. W. Habercom when asked by The
STAR representative II there was any truth in
the report that efforts had boon made by the
single tax opponents to secure the removal Of
Commissioners Britt and Long from their fed
eral positions because Of their refusal to rescind
their recent order or resign from the board re-
piled: There Is considerable indignation IN
fayetteville over that statement, andas soon as it
gained circulation I addressed a letter to the
Secretary Of the Treasury protesting against the
dismissal OF Mr.. Long under the order affecting
his case and received the following reply:
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
/ WAsHISGrON, D. c., July Il, 1892.
Hon. L. W. Habercom:
Dear Sir: Secretary Foster directs me to ac-
knowledge the receipt Of your letter of'the Goth
instant, protesting against the removal Of Mr..
Long, an employe Of the bureau Of engr wing
and printing, because Of the alleged violation
Of the executive order Of President Grant, pro-
hibitlng officers and employees In the depart
ments from holding municipal or state offio %.
The secretary has not as yet received any re-
| quest for Mr.. Longs dismissal.
Very truly yours,
RoBT. ]. WINNIE,
Private Secretary.
Mr.. Habercom further remarked that he had
also received assurance that Mr. BIRTHS removal
had not been demanded, and he thought that
under the circumstances the resolutions Of Dis
tEict Assembly, No. 6, X. Of L., to say the
least, were ridiculous, and wondered if those
rumors bad been circulated for the evil DUR