The Commonwealth. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1911-1914, 1914-02-05

Everett, Wash,
On fencing my homestead ! put the
fence as near on the line as could
without making a survey. MIR. B. took
a homestead adjoining me and In fene'
ing his land he set posts almost
against my fence and attached his
wire to them In order to avoid joining
onto my fence, and yet have the bene-
fit of my fence as II would be lmpos-
sible for any stock to get between the
end of his fence and mine. At an
other place he joined onto my fence
without permission. Can | make B.
pay for half of the fence that he has
the benefit of? Can ! make B. stand
half of the expenses of a survey to
establish the division line between our
homesteads? Can a person collect for
damages that happen to stock from
down or unlawful fences? What is
lawful fence in this state?
w. Z. u.
A-You can make B. pay for half
of the fences of which he has the
benefit, if they are line fences be-
tween your lands. If a majority of the
owners affected give ten days notice
to the other owners, and secure the
county engineer to relocate the divis-
ion line, each will have to pay in pro-
portion to the amount of work done
for him, which the county will collect.
A person can collect damages for in
juries happening to stock because of
down or unlawful fences, from the per-
son responsible for unlawful fence, or
who is negligently responsible for the
down fence. The description or def
milton of lawful fences is too long to
be published in this column. Send
stamp.
Q.-There is much discussion here
in regard to the single tax. One per-
son says that the more Improvements
made, the less your tax. In other
words, for every stump you pull out
you get rebate on the next years
taxes. In Everett they had single tax,
and a party there owned two lots; the
corner lot had shack on it, the next
one had good house on it; on this
lot the taxes were so much less that
he Immediately improved the lot with
the shack on it, and his taxes were re-
duced.. The person also stated that in
Vancouver, B. c., where they have
single tax, the city puts in street work
free, and takes care of your parking
strip, plants trees, cuts the grass, ETC.,
all for the Joy they get out of it, Pm
from Missouri E. w.
A.-The party is mistaken in regard
to the single tax. A government might
make a rebate on taxes for the pulling
of stumps or for other improvements;
but that would not be single tax,
simply agrarian subsidy. The essen
tial proposition peculiar to single tax
is that land owners taxes shall not
be raised because he improves his
land 1t eXempts improvements from
taxation, putting it all on the land.
This would invite improvements; and
would put damper on the holding of
land for speculation; for the taxes on
the land would then be so much higher
that a property holder would have to
improve his holdings in order to make
tax money. Under single tax, the
taxes on a particular lot would be the
same whether it had skyskraper on
it or a pig sty.
In Everett the city doesn't make
any street improvements for the
health of the property owners. I'm
sure they don't in Vancouver, B. c.,
either. But, I have read that in some
parts of Canada a farmers taxes are
less on his cleared land than on his
unimproVed land. This simply means
that they have screwed up the taxes
on wild, regardless single tax philos-
ophy, for the purpose of inducing peo-
Pile to clear and cultivate; and to put
crimp in the land hogging game.
That's not really single tax, but get
ting close.