The river press. [volume] (Fort Benton, Mont.) 1880-current, 1910-10-12
Republican County Ticket.
WE WANT LOWER TAXES.

/
A matter that affects all Montana
taxpayers will be submitted to the
voters at the coming election, and it
lie proper that It be given careful con.
slider alton. 1t refers to the state tax
levy Of q mills which, under the con.
stitution, must be reduced to 1t mills
next year, unless the voters decide
that the present rate shall remain In
effect. 1t is provided In the constitu.
that when the assessable wealth
of the state exceeds $500. O00, 900. the
tax levy for stateIpurposes shall not
exceed II mills; but it ia now proposed
TO raise the limit and make s600, 600. +
600 the valuation at which q lower
state levy shall be compulsory.
A similar proposed constitutional
amendment waslsubmitted to the vot.
ere at the general election Of two years
ago, and was defeated. The proposi.
ton to be decided this year differs in
q few respects from that of two years
ago, but the essential point Ia that it
contemplates q repeal OF the constitu.
tional provision that now entities
property owners to a lower rate O
taxation.
Several public officials, professional
politicians and newspapers have dis.
cussed the question from the view.
point of those who favor a con.
tinuance OF the present rate of taxa
ton. They submit financial exhibits
to demonstrate that a state levy of II
mills, as now provided in the consti.
tuition, will not produce sufficient rev.
enue for the needs of the state govern
ment, and that the various depart
ments and state institutions will be in
financial distress unless Montana tax.
payers continue to dig up the state
levy of q mills that has been collect.
ed heretofore. Appeal is made to the
patriotism of Montana taxpayers, to
save the state finances from 30 embar.
rassing deficit tha2may result unless
they agree to waive their present con-
stitutional right to q lower tax levy.
But why shouldiMontana taxpayers
assume thisiburden, when they have
been promised relief to 1.-THE extent Of
one mill in!the tax levy for state pur-
poses? Why did not the legislative
assembly avert the threatened crisis
In state affairs by reducing appro.
priations, or providing for q larger
state revenue? 1t has been apparent
for some time past that the assessable
wealth of the statelwss increasing to-
ward the $500, DOC, 000l!mark, when q
lower tax levy must take effect, but
nothing vas donelexcept; to provide
for q vote upon q proposed constitu'
tional amendment which, il adopted,
will postpone to a very remote period
the lower tax levy at present guaran'
teed by the constitution.
If the state government is menaced
by financial distress, the Legislative
assembly is clearly to blame for that
condition, and itIis unfair to appea,
to the taxpayers to comelto the rescue
and dump their hard.earned dollar
into the state treasury. Some foul
years ago. Montana taxpayers con
sented to a small additional state lev!
to sustain the credit of the state in tn
matter Of bonds illegally issued, ant
it is imposing:upon their good natur
and generosity toissk further assist
ance when there are other methods b,
= which necessary revenue could be Sc
cured.
During the past eight years, success
sive legislativeiassemb have bee
asked to permit the Montana electo,
ate to vote upon the question of plat
ing miuiuglproperty upon IN equalit
with other classes of property in til
matter of axation. This reasonabl
request has been refused every time
The respective legislative assemble
or most Of their membership-d'
clined to allow this proposition to G
before the people. AZ q result Of the
refusal to allow Montana voters I
express themselves upon this subjec
the owners of mining property-wh
enjoy oil the benefits and advsutag,
OF state government to the same e;
tent "A the wners of other classes