Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1913-12-20
AVOIDING A VOTE.


4 nrenoe court of the state in the capitol
grounds extension case, Is not yet at
Ahand. but is awaited with interest IN
rider that the line of reasoning follow
= by that body in rendering Its opln-
\, may be analysed. 1t is certainly
in accord with the Interpretation
u ne constitution by some OF the pest
Il yers in the state.
rom the extracts we have seen OF
y ! decision it seems to say, that the
Iislature can levy tax on the peo'
> of the state and make them pay
m wear to year and that that obllgar
on their property does not const1-
q {e a debt. There Is no question but
q what the constitution allows the legls'
3ature to do that If a majority OF the
%yoters sanction such action. II Sec
stion 5, Article of the state constltu'
At;on was not adopted for the purpose
Sof giving the people an opportunity
Ito express their desires In such a mat
ter as the capitol grounds extension
expense, then for what purpose was II
adopted?
y The makers of the constitution could
mot foresee the details of every prop
POSITION that was going to be IN the
future put before the Legislature, there
for all they could do was to frame
measure showing an absolute intent,
and word it so that it did show such
intent, to protect the taxpayers. IN
Aother words, it tried to guarantee the
Il Taxpayers the opportunity or protect
by making 1t obligatory
upon the legislature to submit to the
taxpayers propositions involving large
sums of money to be raised by taxa
ton.
The purpose for which this money
us to be collected from the taxpayers
is not for the purpose of meeting the
4 ordinary running expense Of the state,
yiit is for the purpose of buying grounds
land establishing park that Will mean
= a big burden upon the taxpayers TO
q maintain after it is purchased. The
,Ipkeep of it will come within the
regular yearly expense OF the state
and the taxpayer will have to foot the
bill.
IF such a measure as this-a prop
osition necessitating the raising of
sum of money practically equal to one
dollar each for every man. woman ana
child in the state-is not one that
should, under the constitution be SUB
r mlLCOu W lAS pCOP1CS SAASA "
Of a financial proposition involving the
taxpayers should be submitted?
\ OF course everyone understands that
the state would simply enter into
ansaction whereby it was to make an
right purchase of land to be PAID
Immediately and warrants or bonds
led for the immediate transfer OF
title from the owner of the LAND
The state, the section above referred
5 would apply without question. But
bw can the intent of the constitution
q q avoided by simply contracting
,.ebt to be paid in regular annual IN
stallments without submitting 1t to the
people when the fact remains just as
certain In one case as in the other
that the taxpayer has to furnish the
! money.
What is the objection to letting the
people vote on a matter that involves
such an amount OF taxation?
The loading by the legislatures OF a
lot of unnecessary taxation on the peo-
Die is contributing it's part to the high
cost Of living, because, In the hnal
analysis, this money has to come out
of the channels Of business through
q marginal profit on goods made
bought and sold.