Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-03-27

are not only equal and just through.
out the State but that they amount
to the proper amount of money for
the use and benefit OF the State.
The bill introduced by the commit.
tee provides for the increase in taxes
Of all the property Of the State of a
mill and half don't think we have
sufficiently taken into consideration the
fact that before we get to the mill
which is in discussion here we have
already by bill which has practically
passed increased the taxes on Wild
lands by a mill and half in the go
called Deasy bill, which, while it does
not pay into the State treasury the
money on the valuation of this land.
does relieve the State treasurer of the
burden of some $4,000 which hereto
fore has been paid from the State treas
ury for fire protection in these same
lands. That bill alone increases the
revenue of the State by some $50,o00
because it saves $4,000 to the State
which previously the land owners have
expended themselves. Now. we run in
to this half mill tax which everybody
admits is constitutional because it has
to be apportioned among all the
parently objects to that That added
to the other mill and a half would be
two mills, and the taxes before were
three mills That is an increase OF
66 2-3 per cent Now we come to the
last and final mill which is really the
only thing in discussion and in con-
troversy here. It is said that that mill
is unconstitutional. We differ upon
that point. 1t seems to me it is, but
don't know; it seems to others it il
not. and don't think they know def
nitely: and probably nobody can tell
definitely until the question is submit
ted to the supreme court and they
have listened to arguments and after
consideration of the matter have de-
cided it. AS practical proposition it
seems to me, one of the principal rea-
sons why if the property is not taxed
it is not because it is not distributed
equally throughout the State but it is
because it is not assessed equally, and
for this reason. OF course you are
familiar with the fact that this $4,000
raised by taxation on the wild lands
and giving that back to the other
towns and cities and plantations ac-
cOrding to their value, when you get
all through with that you have not
assessed the tax equally.
l do not believe the real objection to
the passing of this extra mill under dis
| cussion.-I do not believe the real OBJ
lection to that lies in the fear that any
of US have that that is unconstitutional.
I think the real objection lies to the
| principle of dividing that $4,000 among
4 1,a roct Of hn Ctata
from the wild lands. You distribute it
| among the other parts of the State in
proportion to their valuation Now. that
is not objected to very seriously by
the wild land owners. They stated be-
fore the committee that they did not
seriously object to even this large in
| crease in value tax. I will undertake to
say that the real objection comes from
| the common people more than from the
| owners of wild lands; and / regard the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Bremen as an illustration Of the
fact, that having given the money that
they fear and they deprecate the idea
of adopting such legislation as that and
where would it bring up? Who can tell
but what at another time the PROPOSE
ton may be not only to take money
from the wild land owners and pay it
to the towns, cities and plantation but
to take money from the wild lands and
the plantations and distribute that to the
cities. or take money from the cities BY
taxation and distribute that back to the
owners of the wild lands or plantations
One is just as constitutional as the 9TH
er. 1t is not $50 probable and not so
likely to come about. but certainly it is
possible. And when you commence an
ineduitable distribution like that. who
on earth can tell where you are going to
bring up?
1 think that is one of the great and
principal objections to the adoption Of
this bill and another is that the principle
itself is obnoxious. 1t is Il new princ-
pie; I never heard of it before 1t
may have been adopted elsewhere.
don't believe it has ever been put into
operation elsewhere. If it is proper
and legal to do this for one mill, Of
course it can be done for ten mills.
1t has been suggested by the gentleman
from Waterville (Mr. PattangalD that
this measure is probably constitutional
because the court declared the distrbu-
ton on the basis of scholars was con-
stitutional. 1t seems to me that this
is based upon an entirely different prin-
ciple. When money is taken from wild
lands by taxation and distributed per
scholar those scholars may be anywhere
throughout the State. When you dis
tribute money on the basis of valuation
there is no possibility of that money
getting back to any place upon the wild
lands where it came from.
Now to go back to the matter Of the
principle Of distributing this money
among the other portions of the State.
AS l say, l think that is obnoxious to
great many thinking people because it
is new and it is untried, and you don't
know where 1t will come out next. l
think, as the gentleman from Augusta.
(Mr Burleigh) says, that the trouble
arises on account of the unconstitution-
atty of that part of the bill, and there
is going to be very embarrassing situa-
ton among the towns and cities on ac-
count of having held their meetings and
arranged their money affairs; and Of this
money is not going back there there is
going to be trouble all over the State on