The daily morning journal and courier., 1901-03-18
THE TAXATION PROBLEM.
Farther Consideration of tho Chamber
 of Commerce Bill.

As the Register has employed sever
 columns of impassioned editorials ana
 one and one-half columns in communi
 cations, in a vain effort to induce thu
 Chamber of Commerce to sacrifice MT
 Rowe and his misguided bill,'' and 1T
 answering a three-fourth9 column
 statement of mine, I turn to your dig
 nified pages from the din of wordy war
 fare, to answer the temperate ant thoughtful communications of Professor Farnam and MT. Wallace.
 The subject being one of practica
 business operation. as well as of politi-
 cal economy, any intelligent business
 man may venture to consider it, with
 out undue presumption.
 The Chamber of Commerce bill, to
 prevent excessive assessments of real
 estate, does not propose any change in
 the principle or method of assessment,
 but provides a simple, automatic
 method of correcting over assessments, and ascertaining just and lawful as- i sessable values. The bill Is very sim
 pie and direct in its operation, and
 need not frighten anyone whose imag-
 nation has not been made to see a | bogeyman by the excited ghost stories
 about revolution" and ''chaos' in the Register editorials.
 In reply to Professor Farnam's para graph one Those who have made @ study of the facts for the past four months know that the evil of fragrant over-assessments is widespread and ur- gent.If 1t is temporary" the actual appeals to the Chamber of Commerce law will be temporary also. It will promptly remedy yover-aSsessments, and then will remain a quiet, but effective and constant influence, in prevention of unjust assessments Should, however, excessive assessments again occur, the law will be there ready at once to cor rect the evil.
 In reply to paragraph 2, (a.), we do not claim that this bill will correct all the ills that taxation Is heir to. Let us remedy the mosttorying evil first.
 (b.) A taxpayer "X.,' who does not wish to use the proposed law will still have the present remedies.
 Co Taxpayer ''Y.. who does use it, will get the reduction to the present market value" and no lower. This "Y'' has a right to- under the present law, and no one Is harmed by his secur- Ing what Is his right.
 (d.) "X" will be benefited by the operation of the law for "Y.," because the operation of the law for his neigh bor ''Y." will establish standards of value in the neighborhood, and the as- sessors will heed these standards.
 Paragraph 3. (a.) Property whether unimproved or improved has mar ket value" and on that only it ought to be assessed according to the existing law.
 (b.) Professor Farnam says: "He could at best get a reduction of only 20 per cent" If he will read the bill again, l think he will find that in case of "Y.," whose place worth $1,500 is as- sessed at $3,0OO, "Y." can get the as- sessment reduced to $1,500 with some risk of selling, or he can get 1t reduced to $1,700 without any risk of selling.
 To paragraph 4, reply, if under this law ~" gets his assessment reduced to the present market value" which Is his right under the present law, it l wrongs no one.
 Shall we refuse to permit "Y.," to- gether with "Z.," "U.," 'V," and oth- | ars to obtain their rights under the law, | because "X." for reasons of his own | prefers to use only the present methods )f relief? If "X." prefers not to avail 1mself of a direct and automatic rem edy let him do so and not complain. Even if from some unusual circum- stance he cannot avail himself of the lew remedy, he should still be willing hat "Y.," "Z," and "U." should secure heir lawful rights.
 For illustration, blind man cannot lse the public library, but he is willing hat his neighbors shall do so although lis taxes help pay for it. A lame man nay not walk the pavements, but he oes not protest against their use by thers.
 Much has been written about the mall owner losing his homestead. lany of them which are worth $1 300 in he market are assessed at from $250O 0 S3,000. If the owner offers it for little bove the market value, say $1,700 here is very little chance that 1t will e sold, and, if 1t is, he can buy one 1 qually good for $1,500, and very likely or $1,300 or $1 1,400. The market value of { small place is more closely known nan of a large one, consequently the ( wner can safely offer it nearer to it's { alue. Thus. the owner of a small lace can avail himself of the proposed 1 lw much more safely than the owner large one. This law will not enable any person ( procure q reduction below "the pres ( Tt market value," which the existing w entities him to.
 MT. Stoddard's opinion is worthy of Y )nsideration as that of a Sagacious, l I ractical business man. Nevertheless \ c ores of other sagacious, practical bus ess men approve of the bill. The lat a r have been present at many dis a lssions of the bill during the past V ree months, while MT. Stoddard has r ,t " As to my neighbor, Mir Wallace, he V -ys: ''The opposition was not to the Il itself," and adds that all he asks e S time, having seen it for the first me last night.' The bill was adver- y sed in December, 1900, and was u