Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1914-01-16
BRIGGS TAKES Up
CUOGEL FOR FARMER
States His Position on Fines for
Improvements '-Discussion
Open to All.

AS expected and desired, the queS-
ton raised in the leading editorial in
THE WASHINGTON STANDARD two weeks
ago. entitled Fines for Improve
ments,' has started a discussion from
the farmers standpoint and one the
editor of the STANDARD hopes will con-
tinue until the farmers position--his
objection and reasons for it-are clear
H. p. Briggs, now serving his sec
ond term as master of the Thurston
County Pomona Grange and one of the
best known farmers of the county
takes up the cudgel for the farmer in
the following letter. Mr.. Briggs pre-
ferred that his name be kept out of
the discussion, but the editor con-
vinced him that his argument would
carry more weight if his name were
signed to it, and he finally consented
Mr.. Briggs letter says
Editor WASHINGTON STANDARD:
"In reply to your editorial in the
issue of January 2, do not quite
agree with you with reference to the
question, Fines for improvements
Il am somewhat like yourself when
it comes to knowing all about political
economy, taxation or allied phrases,
as you call them, but l do know the
question of being fined for improve
ments is a pretty deep subject if we
wish to consider it from A to z.
Your idea, as l understand it, is
not quite to the point as l see it, yet
will admit i am not above my fell
low beings so far as knowing it all is
concerned.
when you compare material
value with an imaginary valuation,
there is some difference.
| For instance you say: If he does
not expect to make far more from his
cleared acre than his neighbor will
from his uncleared acre, then he has
no business clearing the land.'
ut seems to me that is not the ques-
tion involved. The question is, has
he added any material value to his
land by improving it? (When 1 say
improving 1t, mean clearing 1t or
making the soil produce)
IF two men buy farms side by side,
pay the same price for each. both be-
ing equal SO far as natural advantages
are concerned, and IL one spends $500
improving his land. should he be taxed
more than the other fellow who has
not touched his?
you say it is the same in your
business-when you add new machin-
cry you pay more taxes and do not
consider 1t a fine Sure not, you
have added material value, ma
chine, while the farmer who has add
ed the improvement has not added
that material value-he has added
nothing in a material way. He has
the same amount of land, the same
quality and quantity as his neighbor,
but he Is expected to pay additional
taxes.
"If you have printing plant and
are using 1t and your neighbor also
has one that he is not using, both the
same kind and size, his being idle and
doing him or no one else any good, do
you think you should be paying more
taxes than he because you are working
yours or are making 1t pay?
"If two men have $1,000 each, and
one man puts his money out and
makes it earn or 10 per cent. for
him, while the other does nothing with
his, should the one who is making his
work or produce for him, pay more
taxes because 1t brings him in more? ?
In other words If he does not make
enough out of the interest to be able
to pay more taxes, then should he not
lend his money?
What makes value? Development.
What has made the value of our farm
property or any other property? De-
velopment.
Then If development makes an in
creased valuation, should the one who
makes this development also make a
value for his neighbor who does not
have ambition enough to make it or
help to make it:
While property in a locality may
be developed or improved and may
raise the value OF same and adjoining
unimproved property, it does not prove
that the property improved is a pay
ing investment nor can be made a pay
ing investment, yet 1t has added value
to itself and other property by being
improved.
Il am inclined to believe that others
will agree with me when say the
| Continued on page p