Albuquerque evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1911-1914, 1914-01-23

no lcvics Many OF yous poor people
are affected bV the 5000 exemption.
as Mr Catron said. lie said himself
that 10 wuH question WhCthor the
consU tuition did away with incl
old law. That question CAME up be-
fore The board of equalization OF thcI
stntc and we resolved the doubt iu|
favor OF the poor people By reason
Of the legislature having failed to-
act We decided that YOU were entitled
go o. so man who regards the truth
viii dare 20 stand here and tell inc
that the board has acted without rec
gard to the poor people of The state.
The man who does that should never
be- considered again among respect
able people. in 1913, after that law
was passed every county ben the state
but one, besides Santa Sc district,
took tho value of 1900 on The fuil
valuation. Tho constitution does not
read exactly like Mr. Cntron said. u
does not exempt S200 from the taxa-
tion value. Il says the legislature
may piss law exemptions 5000 worth
of property from taxation and % wis
held Boz every county. cEocpt santa
ne district and one other county,
that BE- should come on the total val-
ttuon. We have very elaborate
opinion from the district attorney Of
sun Miguel county Mr Charles ".
.G. Ward. holding that the exemption
LOT 5000 should come OFT of the total
value. Mr. Clancy, the attorney gem
oral was doubtful as Co that opinion
ana he went into the subject thor
ouRhly ANA decided it was correct
Tho constitutional convention and
legislature provided that law them
selves. J did not make tho constitu-
ton or the laws. ! am mot trying to
evade anything or stoOpIng 20 subter-
fuge am not playing politics in
that sense. There o. proposition be-
fore the people OF this state TODAY.
when these people tell you that the
state board of equalization is rcapon-
siblc for the high stakes In the state,
they tell you what is not true.
Did no. the state board have The
righ 20 believe that the assessor ana
county commissioners of santa Fo
county had acted fairly and assessed
your property equally tf there
were inequalities, the s'aio board ala
not make them, did uT 10 there
Wfif tittiIN tillAfNt NNNN county fnAtNH
missioncrs and assessor were rcapon-
sihle Cor them. II tho value was
raised by the state board and YOU
iid not need the revenue % was the
duty OF the commissioner to reduce
70 was 10 not? II you did need the
revenue, then be patriotic and pay
the taxes. but look 20 ii aud soc where
the revenue is going can show
YOU from the records just why aud
how the raise was mado by the state
board of equalization. ana you viii
hc surprised hy that. : win show
YOU $50 that these people who are
talking viii not make such statements
any more.
! wish To mention Just one raise In
santa Fc county. When the state
board met. we received protest
from n prominent citizen in this city
whose name I win not mention. lie
was not "a Democrat We chilled him
n and another man whose politics ]
10 not know. They gave list of the
property in santa Re. and We struck
IN the list an property that they said
was assessed as high as so per cent
Of is value, and We added go per
cent on the rest. We hpd q rlght 90
40 that Ne could rat false and