Pullman herald. [volume] (Pullman, W.T. [Wash.]) 1888-1989, 1898-11-05
FREIGHT RATES
AND SINGLE TAX
Oliver Hall Tells the RefOrmerS
a Few Plain Facts.
Inside Workings of
the Infamous Fusion
Legislature.

.
In the Advocate of October 81 is an
title "Oliver Hall Says Yes" which pur-
ports to be my views on the question OF
single tax and exemptions. The article
so far as it alludes to me and my posi-
tiOn on these questions is SO fair a state
ment of facts that | have no complaints
to make until the closing paragraph is
reached, which states that when told by
the reporter Of the Advocate that the re-
publican party in convention had over
whelmingly defeated the proposition to
exempt personal property from taxation
to the amount OF $500 | answered evas-
lively.
| would like to ask the editor of the
Advocate why he did not give my reply
to his statement and let his readers
Judge as to whether there was any eva
sion? My reply was as follows: That
believed in an exemption OF $500; that
the republican convention in this county
had declared in favor Of an exemption of
$500, and that the republican party in
this state had always been in favor of an
exemption of $500; that in my opinion
my position and that Of the republican
party in this county was in perfect har-
mOny with the state platform; that the
exemption of $500 was never considered
as an exemption with a view OF shifting
additional burdens to the land-which is
the object Of the pOpulist single tax-but
merely as a good business policy for the
state, as there are many persons whose
entire possessions are not worth more
than this amount, and the expense of
collecting those small amounts would be
so great that the state would derive no
benefits, and in many instances il prop.
erty was sold to collect the taxes it
would make public charges of the parties
whose property was sold; and therefore
it would not be to the interest of the
state, neither would it be right to collect
these small amounts.
Ii this was not the substance of my
reply | hope the editor of the Advocate
will correct me, and | will leave it with
the public to Judge as to whether there
was any evasion.
| am perfectly willing to state my
views upon any question that is before
the people in this campaign. | am OPP
posed to exemptions, and among other
reasons may be mentioned the following
During our early days of statehood
pie was that the cities, counties and state
make improvements which necessitated
the mourning of a large Indebtedness.
Many OF our municipalities, in accord
ance with the wishes of their people (for
it required a three-tifths vote) created an
indebtedness equal to ) per cent of the
assessed valuation of its pro1&rty. OnH
Legislature had wisely decidefthat this
was as great an indebtedness as should
be incurred Except for certain purpOses) ,
or the people would no doubt have made
the debt heavier.
1t is in my opinion unjust to use an
inflated valuation on the whole amount
OF property as basis to fix an amount
of Indebtedness that would not be bur
densome and then exempt a large per
cent OF the property and throw all the
burden on the balance.
Many OF my populist friends who,
either as republicans or democrats, were
in favor of mourning the indebtedness are
now "howling'' about the burden OF this
republican debt, and in my opinion our
present Indebtedness is a heavy burden;
but how it could be made easier by ex-
empting one-half the property from the
burden OF taxation and doubling the
burden on the other half is tGOre than |
can tell.
In my opinion the populists in this
county do not believe in single tax or
large exemptions-whichi is nothing more
or lees than the entering wedge of the
single taxer with a view to single tax in
the future.
But the leading politicians OF the pop
ulist party in the state need the votes of
the single takers to secure the offices
| they wish, and therefore the populist
party in state convention is ALWAYS
pledged to a liberal exemption from tax
| alton of personal property and improve
ments on real estate. During the session
OF the last legislature | asked a promi-
nent populist from the west side, who is
a single taxer, this question:
'How is it possible for you single tax
men and the PalOuse farmer TO work to-
gether in the.same party?"
His answer was
"The large land owner is the man we
are after; but those fools don't know
what we are leading them into"
In my opinion the Palouse farmer will
decline to be led into anything of the
kind, and there will be parting OF the
ways between the PalOuse farmer and
the single taxer.
| AS SulIOt vi luC ADVOCATE mas dc-
cused me OF evading an answer with re-
| gard to the position of the republican
party, | would like to as him few ques-
lions about the populist party.
In the Advocate OF Oct. -, under the
head of ''Kept the Promises, find the
words "The incontestibIe fact is that
the reform forces of Washington have
not only carried out every promise made
to the public in 1896, but have redeemed
those promises more than hundred
fold"
Will the editor OF the Advocate dare to
say to the PalOuse farmer that the re-
form Legislature granted all the relief in
transportation charges on grain to which
they are entitled? Did the reform legis-
lature grant proper relief on passenger
rates? Did it pass the anti-free pass bill,
about which it made such a howl in
1896? What are the facts: The reform
legislature never granted any reduction
in freight rates; the reduction OF 80 cents
per ton was granted by the Northern
Pacific Railway Co.; and to verify the
| statement | will refer the editor OF the
Advocate to the chairman OF the rail-
road committee in either the house or
the senate, both of whom were members
OF his own party and from this county.
A railroad bill with q $3.50 per ton
/ i L ~