The Devils Lake world. (Devils Lake, N.D.) 1920-1982, 1921-02-09

sS - - u s ;3 4.
The statement you quote xromSsen.
lte document No. 260 Is Approximately
eorrect.f But Your inference from It is
wholly misleading a. you must have.
known when you made Il. II is true
the assessed valuation 81 farm.
land has been increased more than
s1,,Q00,000;000. Il Is also Yttrulse. that The,
rate of state taxation has been de-
creased from Z mills TO less than 2
mills. sS al :.as II 5S.s Il. s.s. & sss5
Statement Branded 10 Half Truth
You say that North Dakota taxes
presumably meaning state taxes)
jumped 115 per cent from 1918 to
1918, and 200 per cent from 1918 to
1920. According to an ofhciai docur'
ment issued by the North Dakota
state tax commissioner, the. increase
of 1919 taxes; over theSi91Sstaxes was.
III. 81 per cent. According to the same
the state levy for 1920 is
$2,S47,186, while the levy for 1919 was
$3,743,209, difference Of $896,O23, or
. reduction q "a per cent. Is your
i half truth, or an un-
qualified falsehood? Not only is the
increase in state taxes from 1918 to
1919 less thansyou give II, but, not
withstanding the increase actually
made, erscapita taxation was less in
North Dakota in 1919 than in any
other northwestern state. twas less
than in Kansas, if we exlude the
bonus levy in North Dakota:
and only SO cents higher Including the
bonus levy. Furthermore, local
taxes in North Dakota are showing5a
decline, equal to or greater than the
in state taxes, while in most
other states all taxes arr. increasing.
And before leaving the subject SSof
taxation, may / ask you on, what
authority you make the statement that
the North Dakota state tax rate, aside
from the hail insurance tax, is 4 mill? :.
II IS 10 mills Tor 1920, and this In
cludes ! levy Of rs of a mill FOR
the soldier bonus fund, SO that the
North Dakota levy for purposes ex-
Of the soldier bonus fund is rs
Of a mill less than the Kansas levy.
Farm Taxes Equitable
You say that farm land, after the
amendment 70 the North Dakota tax
laws, carries 70 per cent -of the tax
burden, while II carried only so Per
cent before these amendments were
made. It has been shown BY the North
Dakota state tax commission that
the actual shift 81 the burden Of tax
alton to farmers considering both land
and other farm values, has been less
than e%ight-tenths Of j per cent.
You say that city property received
the benefit Of this alleged shift Of the
tax burden to farmers. Yet'city prop
erty' owners IN North Dakota loudly
complain that they are taxed on BUSH
ness, improvements at 100 per cent Of
full value, while farm improvements
are exempted. You say that Getty
property under $500 was admitted
tax free,n, and that "city property
worth between $2,50O and $500 was
taxed ct $1,O0.' There is nothing Of
kind in: the law. IN fact, your
is such q jumble.of absurdi-
ties That II iBiaitiisseleess stoS sttemptsto
Anndfinsthisl connection may
/ remind you that you have over,
lo1ked1lthe sHact5Sthat the exemption#of
all fafmfs improvements and farm
equipment up to $1,000 in value has
given . material advantage to The
farmer owning and cultivating his own
farm over the mar who rents ont his
the actualFfaY1hner you Had
given consideration 70 this fact, You,
probably would have had no dihiculty
in3 finding thai, ii sthss, majority ofsin-.
ataht9s, Mhereataxes ION farms hi1ye
been, % you say, "doubled,trippled md;
quadruppled,p the complaints we're
llAflllpdl6nradlsf and often nonresidents.
Il IN; Bondss HBs 4 Yalli4d n 9
You sayAsthat North Dakota has lad
difficulty i sse1inng is bonds, ! their.
validity has not been established 81
the courts.ns Is il possible that you
are not aware ofs the fact that suits
attacking thieyalidity IL these bonds;
were decided fasorabllyy to d state. III
RSoIjaarsaI H. rr,sr@ ~ 4, sslIsn