Polk County observer. (Monmouth, Polk County, Or.) 1888-1927, 1911-11-07

l. -
ton for state has bee regularly
accounted throughout our nation as
task for the expert with the coun-
sci of a small commission; and
moreover, such system has been
viewed as constituting an organic
whole. To the promoters of this Or
egon county option amendment such
universally accredited practice ap-
pears as fetish and a delusion.
Only Argument.
The only argument that appeared
in the voters pamphlet was one di-
rected against the poll tax. The sim
gle tax or rental value taxation was
not by adherents of it during the
progress of the campaign very open
ly declared to be the aim of the
county option amendment. Further
more the anti-poll-tax argument was
appended to one of the other pro-
posed tax amendments in state
ment made by the labor organiza-
tions and intended for the support
of the three amendments collective
ly. The claim that single tax, so
far as it has entrance in Oregon, was
smuggled in under the guise of a
prohibition of the poll tax is surely
not unwarranted.
When the Legislature met in a
regular (biennial) session in Janu-
airy, 1911, it was naturally diffident
about undertaking any general tax
legislation. There was what amount
ed to vote of lack of confidence
in legislatures as affecting their
competency for tax legislation. Not
only were the Legislative tax amend
ments rejected but its power in this
field was restricted to mere initia-
ton of legislation. Furthermore,
under the newly adopted county OPP
ton amendment county regulation
and exemption were made the rule
and all tax legislation must be adj
iusted to that principle.
County Option.
Exponents of the single tax idea
were suggesting that by initiative
measures the taxation Of each county
should be organized in accordance
with the authority granted by the
county option amendment. Their
claim is that the voters in each
county can enact their own legisla-
tion for carrying the amendment
into effect. 1t is proposed to do this
in November, 1912. The specific
procedure for county initiative is,
however, lacking. 1t is provided
only for the state as a whole and
for separate municipalities.
The legislature soon became cog
nizant of the fact that a large ma
iority of its membership repudiated
the principles enacted in the county
option amendment. This attitude
was justified through the fact that
the people had been virtually hood
winked into adopting it, and the re-
tention of it meant chaos in matters
of taxation. Accordingly steps were
taken to submit an amendment for
a repeal of it in so far as it provides
for county option in taxation.
Provision Substituted.
A provision that the legislature
shaIlenot deny a referendum on any
tax law was substituted for that
clause of the amendment which re-
fuses the Legislature on any tax
measure all power beyond that OF
initiation. Coincidently with this
step other amendments were sub
mitted to start anew the rational
procedure for state tax reform. For
this purpose the amendments that
had been rejected in the last cleo
ton were renewed as essential for
realizing any effectually equal and
uniform taxation. Such has been
the procedure of other states with
similar problems. A single tax
would be possible under a constitu-
ton so amended as it is possible in
other states with like constitutional
provisions; but such a tax or rent
al value alone would be possible only
by a vote Of the whole people and
not in separate counties.
Little Favor.
During the session of the legisla-
ture bills having a single tax tend
ency, with provisions for separate
assessments of lands and improve
ments, met with little favor. Real
progress in the direction of taxa
ton Of unearned inerements, and
in the attainment Of equitable tax
alton generally, is being retarded by
the would-be tax reformers with
their over-radical projects. They see
the iniquities of the present system
and who does not-but they seem