The Leavenworth echo. [volume] (Leavenworth, Wash.) 1904-current, 1908-10-23
PROPOSED TAX AMENDMENTS
Some Reasons Why They Should Be De-
feated-The Eminent Domain
Amendment Especially
Bad

bly, than we can express them the rea-
sons why both the constitutional amend
ments to be voted on at the coming
election should be voted down. Read
and ponder them well, and then vote.
There are two amendments proposed
to the constitution, each of which are
to be voted upon at the November
election. A majority of the votes cast
will decide whether these amendments
are rejected or adopted, and the fear
has been expressed that through igno-
rance or Indifference of what the
amendments mean, the average voter,
after having gone over the long list Of
names and indicated his choice Of can
didates, will, in all probability, not
vote at all on the constitutional amend
ments. Under such conditions COM
paratively small number of affirmative
votes will secure the adoption of the
amendments, and the interests that
expect benefits from this proposed re-
vision Of the constitution are quietly
working for the necessary affirmative
votes, comparatively few being re-
CURED, when but few votes are cast.
No discussion of the amendments,
either from the rostrum or in the press
has attracted the ear of the public, but
instead, a still hunt campaign is ap-
parently considered the surest method
of accomplishing the results desired.
The object of this publication is to
call attention to the dangerous tend
ency underlying each of these amend
ments; in one it is to incorporate into
the constitution the legal right to make
class distinctions in taxation; in the
other amendment, to incorporate into
the constitution the legal right Of
Eminent Domain" to persons, indi-
viduals and corporations.
Under the constitution as it now
stands, all property must be taxed uni
formly and equally, and taxation that
is not both equal and uniform on all
classes of property is illegal taxation.
Uuder the constitution as it now
stands, the right of Eminent Domain"
is granted to cities and municipalities
and to public service corporations, and
all efforts that have been made in the
past to take private property for pri-
vate use has been held unconstitutional.
At an epoch in our National and
State life, when the uppermost senti-
ment in public thought is "A square
deal for ALL" there is an attempt being
made to amend the Constitution SO
that it will be legal act to make class
discrimination in taxation and under
the pleas of public usage" and emf
nent domain" take possession OF pri-
vate property for private use.
First, consider the proposed amend
ment relative to taxation. The Con-
stitution says "A uniform and equal
rate of assessment and taxation on all
property in the state, according to Its
value in money" ect., must be pro-
vided by law. The proposed amend
ment says: Taxes shall be uniform
upon the same class of subjects" 1t
is evident that the interests pushing
this amendment want something differ
ent from the " equal and uniform rate
of assessment and taxation on all prop
erty," which the constitution provides
for. They are asking that taxes shall
be uniform on the same class Of prop
erty, but are not satisfied with uniform
ity on all kinds of property. This
points surely and certainly to class
legislation and no legislation in that
direction has ever been other than
crime. The railroads would be one
class all the various public service cor
porations would each constitute class.
Timber lands, farm lands, tide lands,
manufacturing plants, all varieties oil
merchandise and the many varied In
terests would each have its class. 1t
may be satisfactory to John Jones, the
farmer, to know that his tax is uni
formly like other farmers in his class,
but how would he feel when he ascer-
tanned that his farm was assessed at on
per cent Of its valuation and that rail-
ways and manufacturing plants were
paying tax on Is per cent OF actual
valuation.