Los Angeles herald., 1907-01-10

Is more modern and which will meet
the conditions Of today. The present
system of taxation Is old and antiQuat-
ed, having been in existence for nearly
fifty years, and has not proven to be
elastic enough 20 meet or Keep pace
with our growth and development. To-
day we are confronted with the fact
that we have upon our assessment rolls
but very little more personal property
than we had "a years ago, notwith-
standing the population of the state has
trebled, and there has been a corre-
spending Increase In our wealth. Upon
Investigation we learn that real prop
erty bears nearly all the burden of tax
alton, and the farmer. based on the
value of his property and his income,
pays n greater sum for taxes In pro-
portion than the merchant, manufac-
turer or other man of business All the
farmer has is I'm plain sight, and con-
sequently Is assessed, while money and
credits to large extent go free. Such
conditions ought not to exist, as all
property should bear its just propor-
tion of taxes. The expense of the state
is largely met by a direct tax levied
upon property In the different counties.
We have a board of equalization whose
duty is to equalize the assessments
made in the several counties of the
state, so that each shall pay its just
share of state taxes. 1t is a well known
fact that in most every instance as
sessments are made as low as can DC
so as to escape the state tax as much
as possible. And while the board by
equalizing assessments endeavors to put
ali counties on the same basis, still with
all it's care there are sure to exist IN
euualities between different classes OF
property, between county and county
and between city and city, which, can
not be prevented. The result is that
one county will pay more than It's just
proportion and another county Will pay
less. A system which makes such re-
suits possible and cannot be remedled
should be abolished. 1t is quite evil
dent that some change should be made
in our revenue laws, but just now 1ar
that change should go is question.
Shall we continue the present system,
with some amendments, supporting the
state by direct property tax colleced
from the several counties, or shall we
make radical changes in our revenue
laws and separate county and state py
providing that the state shall be sup
ported from sources different than those
which support the city and county?
If this question were a new one l
would advise that we approach IL with
great care and caution, but we find that
system, and that good results nave
been accomplished. 1t is evident that
some of the evils existing today by rea-
son of our present revenue laws can
best be remedied by adopting a system
already in use in several or the states
by separating state and local taxation.
This means that the state shall col
lect it's revenues from sources other
than a direct levy on real ana per-
sonal property-of individuals, leaving
to the counties and cities the exclusive
right to tax such property for local
purposes.
This plan will save the owners of
real estate nearly $4,000.0O0 annually
paid for state taxes, and abolishes at
OF ce the necessity for equalization be-
tween the counties. The assessment
will then be local in each county ana
city. will be made with only local mat
ters in view, without regard to values
in other localities, and without pur-
nose of keeping down the state tax to
a minimum by an undervaluation OF
property.
This system is not an untried one, as
it is now in vogue in several of the
states, where it has proved to be sue
cessful. 1t is the most modern methou
in use and the most just.
The state, under this system, couio
collected from present sources, by levy
ing a tax upon the gross earnings or
railroads, street railroads; express
companies car companies; light, heat
and power companies; telegraph and
telephone companies: on the shares of
the capital stock of banks and upon
corporate franchises.
To bring about this separation it is
necessary that the constitution should
T. o6 vic q
luton amending it as suggested by
the commission be passed
This question of revising our rev.
enue laws seems to me to be one of
great importance and l commend 1t TO
your most careful consideration, trust
ing that you will give to it your best
thought.
Harbor improvements
The question of harbor improvements
in this state today is one of consider
able importance, particularly as 1t at
fects San Francisco. Our commerce.
both foreign and domestic, is rapidly
increasing. We are extending our
trade to the Orient and in Australia
and in a few years, when the Panama
canal 10 finished, this trade Will be
greatly augmented by the commerce
that will spring up between this coast
and the Atlantic. Steps should be
taken to put the water front of San
Francisco, and also of other ports in
California, in condition to accommo-
date this fast increasing trade and to
care for the great commerce which Will
come to us when the canal shall have
heen completed. The rebuilding of San
Francisco will, for number of years,
call for vast amount of building ma
terial, consisting of lumber, steel, ce-
ment, etc, and a great portion of this,
particularly lumber, will come in ships,
and dockage and wharf room must be
provided for it. There is no reason
why improvements should not be COM
menced at once and pushed to compile
ton as rapidly as possible.
These improvements should be sub
stantial and permanent, following
carefully prepared plan, so that when
completed we can boast of one of the
finest ports in the world. OF course, to
relieve present congested conditions,
some temporary work must be done,
and it should be attended to at once.
The board of state harbor commits
sioners, in their biennial report pub
lished in 1905, speaking of the work
~