Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1893-01-19

Mr.. Meyers said he wanted to 60 on
record as against exemption; but if any
bill was to pass it ought to be $500 or
nothing, but not on personal property.
1t was robbery to exempt real estate.
In Alameda, in Bernalillo county, man
| swore in 1891 that he was not worth $500.
Fifteen days after he sold fifteen acres of
land for $1,50O, few days after that he
| qualified before Mr.. Hunt, clerk of the
district court, in the sum of $4,000. He
still owns ITO acres of land and has re-
fused $4,000 for it. That 10 how exemp-
| ton on real estate works. In Valencia
| county the assessment under this e1emp-
ton law was S1,40O,O00 since its repeal it
had risen to $2,172,648.
Mr.. McMullen was called to the chair
| and Mr.. Branch said that he was in favor
of passing this bill without any amend
ment; as ne desired to relieve the poor
people of some of their burdens. He
supposed that this Jose Montana was one
of those men who put their property in
their wifes name to shelter themselves,
| but thought that it would be found that
that property paid its full tax. This was
just and fair law, a claim that the peo-
pie make. Very few men in this house
would have been elected had they not
| promised to repeal this law.
Mr.. Hinkle interrupted to state that he
| had not so promised.
Mr.. Branch then said he considered a
bird in the hand worth 100 in the bushes.
| 1t was known what was done in the coun-
Gil, and the wonder that it passed at all.
| Therefore, he said, down with the amend
ments of the aristocracy, and let us pass
this bill as it came from the council.
| There were no more honest people in this
country than the poor people of New
| Mexico, and he hoped that before the sun
went down this bill would become law
and some relief given them.
| Mr.. Montoya spoke against the amount
of time wasted over bills of no value.
This was bill for the poor people, and
he hoped would speedily pass without
amendment.
Mr.. Romero urged the passage of the
bill.
Mr.. Frampton said he considered the
| whole system of taxation wrong. No
sooner was one defect discovered than
another appeared; and experience showed
that we had not arrived at correct I'M
Outstanding of taxation. The time will
come when the people will awake to the
true system, and then this method that
favors bond holders and bankers and
weighs SO heavily on the rural districts
| would be wiped out.
The gentleman continued to make ute
an able single tax argument, but much of
it was not relevant to the bill and is
therefore omitted. He said further that
| he felt himself in honor bound to support
an exemption law, although opposed to
| it, unless it be on all the fruits of mans
labor. He, however, went further than
his colleague from Mora. He wanted to
carry out his full pledge, and was not
satisfied with two-thirds of it. He there
fore proposed to offer at the proper
time an amendment carrying out his
pledges.
Mr.. Hopewell said no was not elected
on platform asking for exemption and
he therefore would vote against any ex-
emption, but did not intend to put any
obstacles in the way of the bill, if how
ever the $500 clause was restored to the
bill he would vote for it.
| Mr.. Hinkle moved that tho bill with
amendments be referred to the committee
on finance.
On motion of Mr.. Branch that motion
was laid on the table by a vote of Is ayes
| to noes.
| Mr.. Branch moved that the amendment
inserting the word personal" be "refu-
ted" and the vote stood Is ayes and 9noes.
Mr.. Frampton's amendment was then
read changing the amount from 5000 to
$500.
On motion of Mr.. Barela it was re-
jected.
Mr.. Barela moved that the bill be
placed on its third reading; and on mo-
ton of Mr.. Read the bill passed.
The house then at 12:45 p. N. ad journed
until o'clock.