Gilpin observer., 1920-05-13
SECRETARY holland
EXPLAINS AUTO THEFT LAW
Says Funds For Enforcement of
Measure Do Not Come Out of
Pockets of Taxpayers.

Denver, Colo, May 8, 1920.
Mr.. w. ]. Stull,
Editor Gilpin Observer,
Central City, Colo.
Friend Stull:
In order to set you straight con-
cerning the anti-theft automobile
act referred to in the recent is
sue of The Observer wish to call
your attention to the following
provisions of that law relative to
the $4,000 mentioned by you. In
the first place, want to say that
this act was drawn and passed
not only on the solicitation, but
on demand of the State Sheriffs
association, the Rocky Mountain
Automobile Dealers association,
of the various automobile clubs
and automobile owners and vir-
tually every commercial organiza-
tion in the state. This for the rea-
son that automobile thefts have
been increasing so rapidly that
losses have been running into the
hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Of course, a great many of the
machines are recovered, but in
most cases in a damaged condi-
ton. The law itself is being used
as model in many states. So
much for that.
1t not being the purpose to make
it a revenue-producing measure,
only nominal fee of So year
was fixed for a license for gar
ages and dealers. That the gen.
eral revenue might not be drawn
upon it was provided that the ex-
penses of administering the law
should be paid out of the license
fees collected and that this ex-
pense shall not exceed $1,000 per
annum. Out of this sum, all post
age, telephone tolls, kilograms,
stationery, books and supplies, Ii
cense certificates, applications,
clerk hire, inspectors, etc, must
be paid. l also had incorporated
in that law provision giving the
motor vehicle license inspectors
powers to enforce this auto theft
enactment in order to. allow me
to follow my policy of having in
spectors in different departments
cover the work of all departments.
For example, the factory inspect
ors are under orders to enforce
not only the provisions of the fac
tory inspection laws, but the pro-
visions of all other laws which
administer. To date, l have only
one employe appointed under the
provisions of the anti-theft auto
mobile law, and it is not probable
that any additional help will be
/ employed in this special depart
ment.
In your editorial you refer to
various commissions in way in
which it might be inferred that a
special commission was. created
for the enforcement of this partic-
ular law-such is not the case. ]
am with you fiat on the PROPOSE
tion that Colorado is overburden-
cd with bureaus and commissions
1t is a certainty that many of
these should be consolidated-and
if | am to have a voice in admin
istrative affairs after this year
you may be sure that l will go to
the front in demand for these
consultations. Meanwhile, please
do not confuse boards and commits.
sions with departments such as
are conducted under the provis-
ions of the motor vehicle and an.
ti-theft automobile laws, or de-
partments with boards and com
missions.
1t is my claim that those who
make the most use of the public
highways should be willing to pay
for the building and upkeep o.
same-at least, proportionately
For this reason, l advocated al
increased motor vehicle license
} registration tax. AS result
!, there is every reason to believ,
that l will collect and turn owe
to the state and county road fund
not less than 100000 this year
BY the same token, the taxpaye
who does not own an automobil
should not be called upon to pa
for the protection of those VIII
y are fortunate-or unfortunate
o.,., a o,c EAr