The Grangeville globe. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho) 1907-1922, 1911-05-25
ANOTHER HOT
TAX ARTICLE.
State Auditor Cites Facts and
Figures and Law In
the Case.

W llOOuS VI ltibtTS IIOIll all over
the state asking him for the law
and his views on the vexed tax
problem now pressing upon them,
openly declares that Gov. Haw-
ley is usurping the powers of
the Legislature as well as grossly
violating the statutes in his pres
ent course. He says:
1.-The advocates of the present
application of the principle of
full cash valuation are assuming
a great deal of virtue for their
position by claiming that they
stand for the enforcement of the
law. The truth is their scheme
contemplates the most brazen
violation not only of one law,
but of several laws.
1.-The full cash valuation law
has been obsolete for 81 years
under statehood, and for q years
before that under territorial gov
ernment. | cannot see any vir-
tue in attempting to enforce this
dead law at this time, when to
do so necessitates the violation
of several vital live laws. Com
mon sense dictates that if any
law is to be ignored, it should be
the dead law and not the live law
Sound business dictates that you
had better break dead law than
break the taxpayers. This talk
about maintaining the majesty of
the law-as applied to the cash
valuation LAWS all rot.
"The present high-tax advo-
Gates are not nearly so much con
cerned about the majesty of the
law as they are about pulling
themselves out of the hole into
which they have slipped. In
their dire necessity they have re
sorted to all kinds of SUFFERING
es, including ridiculous interpret;
tions of the law. Any law that
does not fit their scheme is in
terpreted as directory" but the
old dead, full cash value law tina
until our revenue system is re
vised, will work such great injus
tice is mandatory declare th'
high takers.
Board Is Without Jurisdiction.
Now, a word as to the law
1t is maintained that you are no
obliged to raise more revenu
than is needful to conduct th
government, regardless Of TIL
|, fixed levies. Admitting that thi
is true and section 2, article
; of the constitution is cited t
, prove it, who is to be the judg
of how much is needed? The cor
, stitution, section 2, article Z, III
: doubtedly makes the legislator
: the Judge in the first instance
t with an appeal to the courts a
t the only remedy in case the legi
S lature fixed the levies too high {
e too low. The high takers assel
: that the state board of equaliz;
\ ton can fix it, but there is M
: line in the constitution or I'll
h codes that gives the state boar
= of equalization jurisdiction
y any way.
t "Section 2, of article 7, of tt
Il constitution says: The legisl
s ture shall provide such revenr
= as may be needful.' Note it say
e Legislature, not state board
e equalization, nor governor
It the state.
o "There is not a section NJ
$ word of the law that brings Il
It fixing of the fixed levies (fi
II ed by the legislature) within Il
it jurisdiction of the state board
g equalization.
n "Section II, of article Z, of Il
If constitution tlels how the sta
g board shall be constituted al
h adds the phrase, whose duti
as shall be prescribed by law Ci
RS any one stretch that out to mea
ID whose duties shall be prescrib
* by the governor?'
le "The legislature has never p
I'd scribed any law giving to t
pr state board of equalization a
le jurisdiction over fixed lev
s. whatever. Only by breaking t
e. law and usurping legislative fu
G. tions could the state board {
it and then its actions in such mi
II, ters being without warrant
I'd sanction of law would be subj'
= to reversal, with attendant ct
fusion. But why break the Ia