The Lamar register., 1902-07-09


vo.ed on next fall. Senator Bucklin.
the originator of the measure, spoke
in its favor and it was opposed by
Messrs. Lafayette Twitchell and Har-
vey Riddell of Denver.
Senator james w. Bucklin said:
with the general denunciation of
our present method, or rather lack OF
method, of collecting state and local
revenue, which denunciation has been
all but universal by courts, law writ
ers, political economists and all think
ing men. will not therefore presume
you ignorant. The present tax sys-
TEN, already discredited by all
thoughtful minds, cannot continue,
and all those who have reflected on
the matter are therefore ready to make
any rational change in taxation.
IF the new system is just, wise and
practical, that fact would be proved
by its actual operation. and on the
other hand, If the new tax is not an
improvement, that fact would also be
demonstrated, and all agitation for the
new proposition would thereupon, of
necessity, cease.
Il have seen the Australasian tax in
actual operation in several different
countries, and among millions of An
glo-Saxon people. l know that it will
work well, and that 1t is just. wise and
practical In proof of such knowledge
staked my whole political future on
its successful operation, and allowed
the success or failure of the whole
question to be settled by test in
single county, and that county perhaps
my own, where l will be one of the
sufferers or beneficaries. Under the
amendment single test can be made
in one county which will settle the
whole question. Now, l have this
proposition to make. l propose that
all honest opposition to the Australia
sian tax amendment cease, that we
all join in securing its adoption and
then that some one county be selected
to make the test of it's value and thus
settle the whole question. What do
our opponents say? Will they join
US in Il friendly test, or are they
afraid we are right? Do our opf6-
nents believe in their own arguments.
or are they joking? If our opponents
believe the amendment to be bad. why
not vote for it, allow the truth of their
arguments to be proved, and thus cas-
lily stop the whole agitation of the
whole question? l pause for an an
swer.
1.-The Australasian tax amendment is
not, strictly speaking, tax amend
ment at all. 1t does not levy any taxes.
nor authorize any taxes TO be levied
of any kind or character. Nor Is it Il
proposition to assess any property for
taxation, nor does it authorize any
kind of assessments or valuations TO
be made. 1t is simply and only prop
osition authorizing certain exemptions
from taxation. 1t simply takes the tax
and assessment laws just as they
stand, and from any assessment which
may be made by law, it permits the
people. by means of the initiative and
referendum, TO exempt certain classes
of property from local taxation. 1t
does not make the exemptions itself,
but authorizes the people of any coun-
ty TO make them If they so desire.
Mines and mining land, and railroad
property for instance, would be as
sessed under the amendment just as
they are now, but from any assess
ment so made certain exemptions of
personal property and improvements
could be made. 90.
I'm formulating the Colorado amend
ment, l adopted absolutely the princi-
pie involved in the Australasian tax,
but of course followed American mod
els, and the genius of our institution,
and not the forms Of the Australasian
laws. Our tax laws were already in
operation, and all that had to be done
exemptions, but in doing that 1t be-
came necessary to change our state
constitution and to formulate consti-
tutional provisions, something I'M
known to the individual colonies.
"It is true that some of the institu-
tions and conditions in Colorado differ
from those in the colonies. but they
do not differ in any material respect
which would affect the principle of
this tax. They have all kinds of prop
erty in the colonies of substantially
the same kind and character which we
have in America. Any taxation or eX-
emption of any personal property or
improvements would therefore pro-
duce the same results in both cOun-
tries.
"It is also stated in opposition, that
only a small part of the land owners
of Australasia are taxed, most of them
escaping through exemptions. This
statement is one of those half truths,
which is an absolute misrepresenta-
ton. The tax for local purposes,
which is by far the most important
part of the Australasian tax, does not
in any of the colonies have any eX-
emptions, but under it all or nearly all
social values, not owned by the gov
ernihent, are taxed. Neither are there
any exemptions from the Australasian
state tax in South Australia. In New
Zealand and in New South Wales, how
ever, exemptions of certain land OWL
ers are permitted from state taxation
only. which exemptions are not an es-
sential part of the system, but are in
conflict with the principle, and have
not worked justly or wisely. A strong
effort is now being made to have such
exemptions repealed, and all social
values taxed for state as they are for
local p,,rDoSpS without any pypmp-