Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1907-03-11
STRONGLY OPPOSE
DISBURSEMENT
Of Union County,
This Neither Time
Nor Place
DECLARE LEADING CITIZENS
Facts and Figures Advanced
BY Opposition to Pro-
ject.

! A delegation of prominent citizens
| OF Clayton, the growing county seat
of prosperous Union County spent
last week in the city working against
the proposition to create the county
OF Foraker out of parts of Union and
Colfax Counties and to take area from
| the present Union County for the
benefit Of ColfaX County. The delega-
ton made individual appeals to mem
bers of the Council and of the House
against the proposition and also argu
ments against it before the Council
| Committee on County and County
Lines. 1t consisted of r. P. Ervien,
manager Of the Clayton Water and
| Light Company; Christian Otto and
| Charles Schlater, successful sheep
raisers; S. J. Bitterman and Paz Val
verde merchants; Howard Earnest,
real estate and insurance; DR.. J. s.
North and Il. V. Gallegos, editor, of
III Fenix, a paper published in the
Spanish language in the town. Paz
Valverde who was member of the
Legislative Council from Colfax Coun-
ty in the Legislative Assembly that
created the county of Union was Sc
lected as spokesman.
The representative of the New
Mexican called on the delegation at
the Palace Hotel Saturday shortly be-
fore its members left for their north
eastern home and secured the follow
l. ing interview with Mr.. Valverde which
succinctly presents the situation from
the view point of the delegation. Mr..
| Talverde said.
Let Well Enough Alone.
"The proposition is simply this;
Union County as 1t now exists is just
able to maintain itself, pay its debts,
4 ~ rsssso % eials and current expenses.
and anoti..sss y - :, e--va 3sway from us
is proposed and hfot 0sa.. namntv as
County be destroyed, but Foraker
. County will never be able to exist
81 am not interested in politics.
am a business man and | look at this
proposition entirely from business
standpoint. Taking the figures OF the
county divisionists for u basis, Unior
: County as now constituted, has lit
2 tie over million and a half dollars
of taxable property for the support O
: the county under existing conditions.
after taking away Foraker County
Il and giving the proposed area to Qua!
g County, the result it seems to me Il
j. yerv clear. Union County, which hai
e forged ahead under difficulties up t.
i the present time will be destroyed ant
e the new county will have hard TIM
S to exist for many years. The proportion
# is inconsistent from a business stand
point and entirely contrary TO all idea
of justice.
e. Total Valuation Don't Justify 1t.
II "The total valuation for taxatio
4 purposes of property in Union Count
in 1896 was $l,327,00 on all classe
of taxable lands, goods, etc. In 100
it was $1,7S2, 900 Now it is propose
r to take from lis for Foraker Count
Z alone, $7S0,795 of this taxable wealtl
That would leave us in the neighbo
Sc hood of one million dollars. In add
tion to the taxable property take
from us the new county would have
prospective--mind | say prospectiv
" taxable railroad property of about OF
We million dollars. Considerable of tn
81 railroad property is entirely prospe
MT tive proposition and none of it W
re become taxable for six years und
ct the exemption law which is at prese
re on our statute books. Seventet
by miles of the ST. Louis. Rocky Mou
tain & Pacific Railroad, which is f
w. ured as prospective taxable proper
on has just been completed and is II
OF subject to taxation for six years.
lor went to Ration recently to consult wi
at officials of the road relative to a p,
posed extension of the line in N,
Mexico. They informed me that
further extension was or would
- considered until that road had ma
e its western connection and termil
which may involve considerable del
Ex- This extension may be considered
portion Of the prospective taxable r.
road property.
gi'- Would Bankrupt Union.
itol Another feature which makes t
gun county division proposition bad c
'ew is that Union County during the =
the year has been settling up rapidly v
ex- new settlers who are taking up,
lea public domain These people are
ion empt from taxation on their lands
oc- quired under the homestead act
$4,- five years and the heads of fami
'00,- in the sum of 5000 on their perst
property, horses, cows and i'm
ments. 1t has Not been proven
they are going to be successful in
tivatlng these lands. We all bell
Ed they will be and we almost certa
hope so However, 1t Is rather
eces |couragng to have them locate am
- us and then face the future in an
fort to reclaim their lands and
ltlsh port county in the throes of b
,day |ruptcy as Union County would b
.lian this bill is passed by the legislat
,,141 1T seems to me that It IS poor
duty ness foresight to create a new co
t to which must certainly fall to suppol
&c., self and at the same time destrt
/. = county which has demonstrated