Webster City freeman. [volume] (Webster City, Hamilton County, Iowa) 1884-1946, 1914-03-17
QUESTION OF TAXATION.


gard to the article in yesterdays pa
per on capitol extension.
You say that the taxpayers in
Hamilton county outside of Webster
City could have opposed the build
ing of a court house in Webster City
with the same consistency that they
can, oppose capitol extension. 1
wonder if you are testing or are real
ly in earnest. You certainly are
aware of the fact that the building
of the court house was an absolute
necessity. You are also aware that
it would be absolutely criminal care
lessness to keep the records of the
county in a building where they
would be liable to be destroyed. And
to speak of the building of our court
house in contrast with capitol ex-
tension as bringing to the taxpayers
of Hamilton county the same bene-
fits is surely a lamentable failure to
give the people of Hamilton county
the facts as they are. The court
house in Hamilton county was an alb
solute necessity, while capitol extern
sion is a luxury with no other OBJ
ject in view than to beautify Des
Moines and also to raise the price of
real estate in that city by condemn
ing and taking away some twenty
business and residence blocks from
the city, driving those people who
occupy that territory to new quar-
tiers, thereby increasing the demand
for residence and business blocks in
Des Moines. All this to feed into
the hungry maws Of these leeches
who are trying to suck the blood
out of the taxpayers of the state for
nothing more than what may accrue
to throw out of the transaction.
You also say that it is "holler"
by the politicians to create dissatis-
faction. Will you kindly tell us
whether or not your sole object in
fighting for capitol extension is for
any purpose other than to keep Gov.
Clarke from being completely ami
hilated at the primaries next spring?
Yours respectfully,
H. B. Hummel
The Freeman Tribune referred to
the court house merely as an illus.
tration. OF course the court house
is a necessity, yet at the time it
was erected the county could have
endured quite satisfactorily with a
building costing one-third as much.
But how about the fine court house
square, the band stand and foun-
tain? They are not absolute neces-
stiles. Possibly the board of super
visors had in mind the question of
booming Webster City property
when they purchased ground for
park purposes and when they used
the money of taxpayers of Jewell,
Kamrar, Williams, harrisburg, Stan
hope, Ellsworth, Stratford and the
other towns and communities of the
county to beautify a piece of proper
ty in Webster City. Yet the people
of those towns and those out in the
townships have not complained at
the expense for these Injuries. If
the principle of objecting to i'm
provements not in ones immediate
vicinity is carried to its legitimate
ends practically all improvements
will be stopped. The property own
ers of one part of the town would
object to improvements in another
part, (if made at public expense,)
in which they were not directly in
terested. The Freeman-Tribune is
in favor of improvements in all
parts of the town, county, state and
nation. 1t is proud of it's state cap
itol and of its national capitol and
believes the state is able to have as
good as the best and that the nation
is entitled to have the very best. Be
a booster, Mr.. Hummel, and you will
take pleasure in seeing all parts of
the country grow and prosper. The
only place at which the Freeman
Tribune draws the line on reason
able improvements is at graft or ex-
travagance, and it is against that