Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1908-10-23

ment, then the average value OF land
in Cass county was only about $40
an acre. lin, Bottineau county the as
sessment of land is $4.O3. If the gov
ernor was right, land there Is only
worth $12 an acre, when as a matter
| of fact it cannot be bought for less
than $40 to $50 an acre. The same
facts are true of Burleigh, Stutsman
and other counties. The other mem
bers found that real estate was in
| fact only assessed for about a fifth
of it's value and personal property
! for sixteen to seventeen per cent.
But they placed the valuation of the
railroads at $4,000 a mile, or twenty
five per cent Of it's value.
The Republican members of the
board were intent on doing YheWy
| duty as officials and treating all class
es of property alike, and Mr.. Wright
said that no man who valued his1
duty as a citizen would stand for a
higher rate of valuation of property
for the reason that it belonged to a
corporation.
The, Republican members of the
board had not. acted because they
believed an arbitrary and unjust in
crease of railroads would be popular.
They acted because they believed the
best information they had justified the
| figures agreed upon. p.
But the figures obtained by the
governor in his correspondence and
inquiries in other states developed
other facts. They developed that in
stead of the railroads in Montana be-
ing assessed $4,000 mile, as the
governor had stated in his campaign
speeches of two years ago, the rail
roads of that state were assessed,
three lines at s17,250 a mile. and 9TH
er lines down as low as $4,000 a mile.
That branch lines in that state were
assessed from $125 to $4,000 a mile,
while in this state all branch lines
are assessed at $6,500a mile. That
in Montana, the state tax levied was
two and a half mills and in this state
five mills, so that at $4,000 a mile
On the Montana valuation the roads
did not pay as much per mile for tax.
| (Applause.) These figures were in
teresting as showing whether the
governors statements of two years
ago as to discrimination in favor Of
railroads were reliable. ~.
The attitude of Governor Burke
in this railroad assessment, was not
| the attitude of statesman, who de-
sired only to do Justice to all men
and all classes of property. 1t is
easy for any man to respond to popu.
lar clamor and say that he is against
railroads and will, if elected, say that
he will see that the railroads are as
/ sessed on a higher basis But it is
the statesman who says that if elect
ed he will inquire into the facts and
do the right, thing by all classes Of
property, and go. no further than thai
in the making of promises.
The speaker contrasted the atti-
tude of Governor Burke with that Of
Governor Hughes of New York, who
when asked why he had vetoed two
cent fare bill, said that he had done
so because the legislature passed the
bill without any knowledge of the
actual cost of hauling passengers an6
that no bill, so passed without know
ledge or inquiry, would have his APP
proval while he was governor. Thi
{ was the difference between the at
, titude of Governor Burke and Cover
: nor Hughes in this important matte
Eof dealing with corporate property.
; Now as to the prohibition question
} Governor Burke was before the pee
pie two years ago with promises. NOV
4 he is before them with apologies TO
a not being able to enforce the law
0 Down at Washington the governo
y mduS d speech III WHICH Ac Sdlu Lud
t he had frequent complaints fror
counties that the prohibition law wa
l. not enforced. When he got these con
S plants he would write the states a
= torney and advise him as to his dut.
f. Sometimes the states attorney acte'
It and brought prosecutions. But som.
g times states attorneys did not &C
e And in. such cases, the governor sal
a that he had looked all through IL
4 law and found no law by which I
e could remove these states attorne.
e from office
t. Mr.. Wright said he was proud tn
20 there was no such law on the statu
lie books of the state. The spirit of sc
t. government Of the people would n
'r permit the passage of a law by Whi'
r the governor could remove any offic
O. at will. 1t was proposed to pass
D. law nv which an eJective officer cop