The Emmett index. [volume] (Emmett, Idaho) 1893-1925, 1909-01-07
PERTINENT QUESTIONS,


stated. but presumably one of Pay.
cite valley farmers. has the follow
inr logical article concerning county
division in last weeks Payette indie
pendent. Mr.. Brown states the tax
side Of the question comprehensively
and truthfully and no comment is
necessary. His article follows:
Editor Independent In last
week i issue of the independent
under the caption want TO divide
Canyon county in three parts,
this statement is made In the
new county taxes would be less
than al present. Why BE.
ca se, SAYS the informant, "a
small county, like small farm,
can be run with less expense than
large one. This statement is
certainly disingenious to say the
least While il may be literally
tue, il is not relatively true.
That a small farm can be run with
less expense than a large on does
not necessarily imply larger profits
To the small farmer for the year S
work. Neither does the fact that
small county can be run at less
expense IN the aggregate prove
that It would be cheaper for each
individual taxpayer.
While we now have the expense
OF but one set of county officers to
delray. il the county was divided
into three the territory embraced in
Tie present county would have
.hree seats OF government to sup.
port From where would come the
gain to offset the extra expense2
Would II increase the productive
capacity OF our orchards Would
il give rs a better price for orr
products? Ifnot. then how can it
be- demonstrated TO cost less to run
three county capitals than onel
Would il not cost as much to con
duct the business of county al
Payette OF Emmett as at Caldwell,
with the added handicap OF having
less property to taxi
Let us examine the figures offered
III support Of the division propa
ganda. The article states that the
assessed valuation At S2, 600, 900 at
the present levy and including the
estimate for fees, the total income
from taxes in the proposed Payette
county would be SOL 90, aud con
tinulng says "The estimated ex
peuse OF the county would be Cost
Of officers $4,000, ren.s and fuel
81. 600. Payette county part Of
the bonded Indebtedness $4,000, |
Tota slS,0 900. /" But is this all OF |
the county expense Then what |
becomes OF the hundreds OF items
Of expense reported Ia the commits
sioners proceedings How are we
10 maintain or schools, roads, /
bridges, etel Where does the state |
come in for its share of support /
Difference ia favor of the new
county 1913. 600 A snug sum in
deed But ! ask you readers in all
candor to consider If il is reason
abe to presume that three seats of
government can be maintained as
cheaply as one. Dividing the
county would increase the tax
paying power Of the people, but
would create additional expense.
10 be met By a higher levy.
Canyon county is already heav
lily taxed, as evidenced by the
present levy. Certainly il is the
part OF wisdom to discharge some
Of our present obligations before
assuming more. The clever sug ,
gestion that q new court house d
would not be necessary till after
The county seat was permanently
located would sound very we'll !
but for the disconforting reflec-
ton that the location of a county
seat Is seldom ANYTHING but a
county seat disputed question till i
after the modern, up-to.date 500. q
Hl0 hauble Is actually landed and ,
ihe people bonded to pay for it. j
Anxious TO secure the coveted .
prize. rival towns will precipitate
his hnality before the taxpayers
are ready for il. And. not 10 be
IN the race OF progress.
he hopeful but mortgage. heladen o
arner or mechanic rallies TO the g
escue Of his home town. votes the Il
appropriation for the new court q
loese evan though he can scarcely al
aise the money 20 meet the inter p
81 on bis home " pay the long d
uiiering merchant his account ut b,
be store. e
Canyon county IS one of the HI
mallest in the state in point of rt
rea. and while IN q fairly pros, d
erous condition perhaps for a new is
onntry. IS largely undeveloped Of
e.. and the people are straining 4
eween high taxes and high prices Il