Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1908-04-27
CHANGERS
DISCUSS
MEASURE

the constitution and initiative laws
10 be voted on by the people in June.
Tax Amendment.
F. A. Myers argued that further
exemption of property would not re-
duce taxation.
John p. Robertson read paper
on taxation In general that was
very instructive. He is deep stu
dent of the problem and threw much
light on the subject.
II was not the Single Tax. but a
long step in that direction. He
showed that according TO the assess
ment OF 1907 improvements on
town and city lots In Oregon were
assessed at $4,000. 900. of which
he estimated s26,000.000 would
still be taxable. Total exemption in
the state would be, according to HIS
estimate, S91 100000. or one-sixth
of the entire property. The other
| fiye-sixihs must bear the additional
| taxes. II would increase taxes In
| that proportion. Instead OF ten
mills on the dollar we would pay
twelve mills. Anyone with not over
a thousand dollars personal proper
| ty would not he benefited by the
proposed amendment. The man with
large personal property and inn
provements would be benefited.
City people with fine homes would
be benefited. II would kin vacant
lot and vacant land industry II YOU
| exempt the farmers improvements,
| his house, barns, trees. shrubs, ana
livestock. he can AFFORD TO pay q
higher tax on land. The cabin
worth $50 was exempted on equal
terms with the mlllionalre's man
sion. The exemption of the manu-
facturer's property was protection
run to seed. The bill had too many
Objectionable features 10 be sup
ported.
VIM. Hillcary. OF Turner. could
not see how he would be benefited
| Equal taxation meant taxes dlstrlb-
uted IN proportion 10 ability to pay.
The lot of man with q $4,000 house
on one side OF the street would be
assessed the same as the lot on the
other side OF the street with S50,-
600 house. Hence the law was
wrong. Ohio had tried exemption OF
factories and the farmers all on
posed that. lie spoke from a farm
er's standpoint 10 show that the
proposed amendment was inlmical
70 the farmers. II single tax was
good why had not some other state
adopted II, II this law was adopted
II would compell many small hold
ers OF real estate 10 lose their prop
erty.
Il. Hofer said the hlg corporations
were not opposed To the proposed
amendment The big cattle syndi-
Gates. and big orchard corporations
wo'ild be benefited.
r. ]. Clarke argued that timber
would be exempt under this law. as
timber was not personal property
John r.. Lewis, state engineer.
said he was opposed 10 the bill. VIM.
Darby said II all property was as
sessed az It's true value there would
be no trouble about n. r. A. Myers
said he was convinced after the dis
cusllon that he was compelled 10
vote against a.
COMPENSATION of Legislators.
r. s. Davidson smoke against the
proposition Candidates did not
seek this for the pay. u would not
give us cleaner men in the legisla-
ture: n compensation was raised
from thr7e dollars a day 10 ten dol
lars o day there would be a greater
scramble for Office. not better men,
Any common citizen could live on
three dollars day and his mile
age
John y Lewis said he favored the
bill Wages were now advanced
over former times Mrs. Davidson
said the money was now spent I'm
getting the Office and the grange was
opposed 10 that
The sentiment seemed To be OPP
nosed Ia increasing the pay.
The Teddy Amendment.
The proposition 20 allow cities 10
regulate their own AFFAIRS in mat
ters of saloons. theatres. gambling. /
aud racing. was next takeu mp. John /
p. Robertson and Mrs Davidson |
spoke against n and the grange /
seemed to be al against H.
Mr. Davidson said II was a saloon /
movement. II was foisted Hpon the
people without publicity John =. |
Robertson made "A severe argument 4
against saloons.
II was decided 10 discuss this
question and the other bills further
on the fourth Saturday OF May.
-----------ts--