The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1918-10-21
ANSWERING MR.. PACKARD.

Forum discussing the proposed tax amend
ments, and despite Mr.. Packard's prejudi-
ecd views and his subserviency to the So
cialists who control the league and who
give him his job, his position entities the
letter to publicity and consideration which
it's arguments in themselves do not merit.
The letter is published in another column
on this page and The Forum is willing to
answer it IN detail for opponents Of the
amendments have nothing to fear from
! open discussion.
His first paragraph is Introduction and
taeeds no comment.
In hia second paragraph two grave onlis-
gions are made. He omits to mention that
the loans to public utilities" may be made
no tofheir full value. Would the taxpayers
care to lend money On Townley stores to
"r@their full value with TOwnley fixing the
E"S% value"9 He also omits to mention that
EfhedIoans of the third class will be unlimit-
led That is the very point The Forum
raised in it's first criticism Of Mr.. Pack
ards letter, and he ignores it entirely, try
hing to slur it over as unimportant. His
second paragraph is a taeit admission Of
the truth Of our first editorial.
The third paragraph is wholly mislead-
ing. The second and third provisions most
certainly do constitute state debt. If the
Fs'pubIic utilities bonded to their full
value, became Improbable the taxpayers
would very promptly find that the bonds
were Estate debt" Any man who has in
dorsed note for friend knows the slight
difference there may be at times between
suehsan act and giving him the money. The
state would be in the position Of indorsing
the notes of Townley ct al for an unlimited
amountfto permit them to engage in any en-
terprise their hearts desired as another
amendment removes all restrictions on how
the money will be spent
Underline amendment the bonds could be
sold to an unlimited amount to back the
private loan agencies managed by close
friends of the league leaders. Moreover our
state school lands could be mortgaged to
half their value. This would provide a
fund of at least $15,0O0,000 in addition to
the 100000 on public utilities and the
$2,000,000 of unconditional bonds. There
is a total debt of $27, 100000 which the
state might contract, even under the mean
ard. In addition the state could, in effect,
indorsethe notes of private loan companies
to an unlimited amount. Do the taxpayers
care to take this chance with Mr.. Pack
ards friends who pay an average of 73
eentsaa year in total taxes?
MrsPackard is safe In. saying that:space
| frbids fhe discussion of farm loan meth
DDS in Great Britain, Russia, Denmark,
Egypt, Mexico, and Uruguay. Any meth
DDS used in Russia, Mexico, Hungary and
Prussia would hardly recommend them
SefTessto Americans The exact conditions
:iR cash of the countries mentioned differ
from those In every other country and from
North Dakota and this paragraph only
beonfuses' the issue.
The: fact that Mr. Packard does not con-
,gider-the debt limit removed, is not impor.
taut. The fact is that it is removed, what
ever Mr.. Packard may think, and his own
Socialist newspapers are defending the re-
,m0EaL and not denying it.
IF, as he says, our present constitutional
debt limit is Joke it is rather serious
charge to make against the Nonpartisan
state administration. If they consider the
present constitution a 'tjoke" what assur-
ance is there that they would not consider
the amendments in the same light, and
give them any "iberal interpretation
that might be needed to fit in with the
plans of the Townley gang? That is just
what The Forum fears will happen and Mr..
Packard has said it for us better than we
could say it ourselves. It makes very
good reason for voting for Mr.. Doyle.
What would prevent this same administra-
ton lending money to twice the value of
the public utilities, for example? What
would prevent them lending money to the
full value of the state school lands, or twice
their value, as long as they are possessed of
this strange sense Of humor which makes
the constitution Joke? We would then
see whether these bonds were estate
deb" or not.
His last paragraph is a strange sophistry
Provided his statements are correct, and
private utilities are over capitalized, no
body is compelled to buy the stocks and
bonds of such companies. Nobody is forced
to lend them money. But the taxpayer
would be in no such fortunate position if
the amendments were adopted His OBJ
jections would have no weight
Moreover if any cities are paying light
ing rates based on over capitalization, why