The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1913-10-29


the article from The Kimball Graphic
commenting on a recent statement
of mine in regard to the work of the
tax commission. and on the subject of
taxation in general, r%e-pnblished by
You with apparent approval, under
The heading The Governor Sees the
Light in which the facts are twisted
and the truth bent, il not broken, to
make ii appear that | have recently
changed by position radically in re-
gard to taxation.
The following quotation from my
recent interview, is taken out of its
regular context, to the end that by
stating a small part of the truth it
shall misrepresent instead of repre-
sent my real position now and here
tofore on this question:
Our present constitutional provis-
ions in regard to taxation are equit-
able in theory, but will rot work out
in practice. In fact, il is admitted by
all students of The subject that the
general personal property TAX system
has broken down and failed"
The above is taken from a general
.SlItt llNIi 4 HidUC III Regard 10 Ilt
need of change in our constitution in
regard to taxation, and to the efforts
of myself and others in the past to
ecure such change. The entire state
ment might be said to be a summing
up of my past attitude on the ques-
ton, and now the above words from
ii are quoted, followed by this: "IIe
has been a long time admitting it."
Have |? Taking my statement alto
gether, my position as indicated
therein is exactly the same as / took
in the state senate in 1907 in advo-
eating the amendment to Article II
of the constitution, and again in po-
litical campaigns, when | proclaimed
it in many public addresses-say a
hundred, as leaSt-When urging the
adoption OF the amendment at a time
when it was difficult to attract public
attention to the question and when
the purpose and effect of the amend
ment was being grossly misrepresent-
ed by various people from various
motives,-by those who sought po-
litical advantage by charging an Ill
terror motive in submitting the am
endment, by those who wanted to
preserve the present inequitable
method for selfish reasons, and by
those who had not caught the spirit
or purpose OF the amendment. And
now it is said, that / have been a
long time in admitting that these
things | so advocated are good.
In connection with this extract my
attention was today called to the
editorial in your issue of the third in
stant on the subject, which, because
of u few days absence from the cap
itol at the time is was published, has
heretofore escaped my notice. In this
there seems to be the same DISPOSE
ton to ignore the essential spirit of
my statement and take a small por-
ton out of its regular context to
make it appear hat | have suddenly
changed my views on the tax 9ques-
ton. Ample evidence that / was not
assuming q new position was to be
found in the interview you were re-
viewing, but seems to have escaped
your notice, advertently or inadvert-
emily.
! find your editorial opening with
this: "As indicated by his statement
= # quite a change has come
aDOtII. III the dLllltut on hoNeTllOT
Byrnc toward the tax problem. In
the early part of the yea he was y
most aggressive advocate of the tax
COMMISSIONS announced purpose of
running down moneys and credits
and listing for taxation the last dol
lar of personal property. To be sure,
the law requires it," etc. Neither the
tax commission nor | ever announced
an intention to run down" moneys
and cderits, but the assessors WERE
instructed to require the listing OF
such, according to law.
Yes, We tried to obey the law-and
respect the official oath sach of us
took to do this very thing. And as to
listing the last dollar of personal
property why not the last as we'll as
the first? In fact, here is the real
objection to the general personal
property tax. Some dollars are listed
and some are not, and my observation
leads me to say that the dollar that
is not listed usually belongs to the
well-to-do or rich, who can well af-
ord to pay, while the dollar of the
man of small means is always listed.