Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-09-12

ness?"
Answer-'why am opposed t
the recall? I am certain that Il
England last year Lloyd-Georg'
would have been recalled in the
| progress of the labor agitation. II
Switzerland three months after tn
railroad legislation was effective the.
would have recalled their governors
| In the case of every reform that Il
instituted, in government or law,
| there comes a time when opposition
i to It by those 1t hits will bring abou
/ a frame of mind when the recall
would be ar unfortunate thing. A:
| for the exercise of the recall on tbs
! Judges, agree that the judges are
| human men like the rest of us anc
| liable to error, but I do not favor
] the exercise of the recall against
! them.
IT would rather take some of oul
| proposed reforms before the Court OF
Errors and Appeals than before the
| LEGISLATURE | know that Is not
| popular, but it is true"
Question: favor taking from the
courts the power to issue injunctions
] in strike cases because these inJunc-
lions in effect declare acts as crimes
which are not crimes and inf1ict
penalties not prescribed by law, all
to aid an employer in defeating his
striking employees. Is not this so?''
Answer-"I have never believed a
man is a friend of labor who does not
say so to them frankly when they are
wrong as he agrees with them frank
~ when they are right. l know the
courts have frequently issued injunc-
lions when they should not have done
so. I know that employers instead of
going to the police have rushed to the
court and sought an injunction and
oftentimes obtained one wrongfully.
L believe that injunctions should in
some cases be Issued but, before the
writ should be granted, notice should
be served and they should have a
hearing In court If acts are COM
mitted which come within the perview
of the court there should be trial
by jury.
Discusses Labor Injunctions.
There have been cases of the peo-
pies rights on the public highway
being interfered with by the exercise
of force. The labor men that know
will not stand for that kind Of action
because they know the injustice Of it
and the dangers it leads up to. 1
say to you that when there are acts
of violence and damage to property
there is right to an injunction, but
there should be a hearing held first.
That is my stand on the labor ques-
ton.
Your platform says that since 1901
Newark has given to land owners
S42. 100000 in "values they have not
earned" Your plan would reduce this
gift only 100000 If this $42,0OO,O00
morally belongs to these land owners,
why take back 100000, and II not,
why not take it all back?
THAT | explain very simply. l
place this value on real estate at a
purely arbitrary figure. Take the
case of man, myself if you like, who
owns property on a prominent corner
of New York which have inherited
and to the value of which / have con-
tributed nothing.
Another man moves out into the
country, buys land and improves it
by his own labor and effort until the
place becomes so attractive that 9TH
ers move out there and the land be-
comes valuable. There is distinct
difference there, and the latter should
not be deprived of the full benefit
of conditions he has created. Others
who move to that suburb later should
not have the same advantages There
is no moral license for a man to have
value out of property that has been
put there, not by him, but by the
community. But these things have
to be worked out gradually"
Q.-"You propose a small reduction
in taxes on buildings, but oppose any
on personal property. What
theory of public policy leads you to
exempt buildings from taxa
ton and not household furniture, ma
chinery or merchandise contained in
the buildings?"
A.-"That is a very pertinent ques-
ton. Our whole tax system is grad
ually falling down. Much of the per-
sona1 property is not tangible when
the tax is to be levied This thing
is going to be worked out gradually.
While we are working this plan out
there will be a little hardship in the
of the personal tax, which
will be later done away with favor
a tax on business inheritance or
and in general on the reg
istry of titles and so forth"
Or favor allowing each munich
pality the right of municipal owner
ship. You oppose this because you
wish to give regulation a further
trial. Why should not the community
have the right to decide for itself
whether regulation has failed. instead
Of waiting until you decide it has
failed ?"
On Municipal Ownership.
Alt is said I oppose municipal
ownership, but that is not true. A
went abroad-to England
and lived there six months investi-
eating what was done there in the
line of municipal ownership and also
investigated some plants owned
here" Mr.. Colby then read from the
report of the commission the reasons
why, in some cases, municipality
owned plants succeeded and in others
failed.
This commission could not give a
reason that would fit all cases, but
told us that those which succeeded
were in British towns and cities
where the highest citizens were called
on to manage the plants and all citi-
zens supported them. In my expert
ence we seldom get the highest type
of citizens interested in government"
Q.-'T favor giving every munich
pality power to abolish taxes on
buildings and personal property, be-
cause this will reduce rents, lower
the cost of living, increase oppor-
tunities for labor and make 1t easier
to get homes. Your platform admits
this. Why do you oppose giving
every municipality this home rule
power?"
Aft we started doing this down
in Camden and failed the result would
be impeaching the credit of all mu-
inequalities. Property of the kind in
the State would be prejudiced, and
so I am in favor of Statewide
regula ton in this matter"
Question: favor directing the
Public Utilities Commission to limit
public utility rates to earnings yield
ing per cent. on the value Of their
physical property, plus expenses of
opera ton and maintenance. Do you
favor this and If not upon what