Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1921-07-08
MIR. AsPLUND's REPLY.


The Journal courteously suggests that president
Herbert j. Hagerman, of the Taxpayers Associa-
ton get on the Job and handle the puonclS'
IN case he is interested the success OF the tax
limitation constitutional amendment. the 1oo APP
pears to be too big for Director Aspund'
we publish in another column curious retor'
from Mr. Asplund to a recent Journal editorial
Mr. Asplund objects to editorial methoos ms
accuses us of injecting prejudice into rair anu
open discussion"
The Journal does not wish to do THIS nor ID 1t
necessary. This amendment apparently shouil pe
defeated easily upon Its merits unless something
more can be said In its behalf. we otter our space
for full and fair discussion
The chief objection which Mr.. Asplund seems
10 make to the Journals method is to our alusioh
TO the consistency of the Taxpayers Association
He regards that unfair We do not
II would be desirable if none of us were COM
PEELED to pay any taxes whatever every oeihahu
that we do pay taxes should be scrutnized' IN
loss a tax can Justify Itself IL should not be laid
yyhether or not 1t does justify itself Is matter
of individual judgment. If sufficiently great
majority feel that 1t does justify itself that should
settle it favorably to the tax
In reaching our conclusions we are enuteo 10
know who is for and who against the tax IN TINS
discussion II is school tax winch Is IN queStio,''
people with children of school age and people
xbo think of the future needs or the state are
willing 70 tax themselves heavily. that the children
may be educated
IF the Taxpayers Association is supported chief-
Nv by the great corporations who hire men TO see
that their taxes are kept down. but hire no one 10
see that the schools are kept up the people ar7
untitled to know that fact and so to properly APP
nraise the motives behind the propaganda Or
course these interests entitled to be hearo anu
+be;r arguments to be honestly weighed, THESE
CON he properly weighed only with knowledge OF
who makes them. We express the behef that 10
ner cent of Mr.. Asplund's salary as director Is
Maid from the contributions of the larger corpora
fions of the state. We will accept his Categorical
denial as true If he will make such denial
We referred to Mr.. Asplunds retort as curious.
The article from his pen which provoked the edl'
torial to which he now makes answer. was an argu'
rnent that the teachers salaries were quite hien
enough and that the amendment should pc passeu
in order to prevent any increase Except Tor TINS
we would have been silent until the issue deVei
oped In the present article he puts on the re-
yarse lever and proceeds to show that twice the
amount can be levied for actual purposes under
the proposed amendment that ts levied uhoert III
present constitutional provision.
We attacked Mr. Asplund's stand that teachers
were a commodity. subject to the law OF supply
ana demand We refuse to believe that teacher
ia lust a member of the genus teacher-that al
ara alike We object to lust any old teacher
Cor vour child lust as we object to just any MAJ
with an NJ D. after his name when your chiio
sick There are doctors and doctors-good pa'
and indifferent The same is true OF teachers
We must pay for merit
Mr. Asplund says "that tax limitations have hat
more to do with removing naedquacy and inequai
ttv in taxation than any other device that has we
been suggested" He then proceeds to snow ina
the "sky is the limit" under the proposed amend
rnent There is something the matter. The tw
statements fail to harmonic. Is Mr. Asplun
kidding" somebody?
Lack Of time has made real analysis of MI
Asnlunds figures impossible yet. Perhaps som
one who is interested will tell us what is the mat
ter 1t is apparent that Mr.. Asplund has use
statewide figures and that the confusion Is par
tally there Many counties have very little schoo
sentiment and have very low and totally inade
innate levies All of the levies taken togethe
amount at present, to s4,S0o000. we are told NOV
~ all these would raise their levy to the limi
under the new law (Which they will not) 1t Nigh
produce $9100.000. All of which proves nothing
win Mr. Asplund please take Colfax. San Migue
Santa Fe Bernallo, Mckinley, Curry Chaves Q
Dona Ana county and give us the situation q
present and also under the new amendment? An
two of these counties will serve the purpose. The
wifi he select a couple of the following cities an
tell us the net result of the change in them
Ration, East Las Vegas, Santa Fe. Albuquerque
Gallup Clovis, Roswell, Carlsbad Tucumcari c
Las Cruces? If the facts justify 1t, we Will sa
we wrong.
Either the amendment will limit taxation. or
will not Which will be the case? Mr.. Asplun
saws that 1t both will and will not
The Journal favors economy. We also favor
constitutional limitation No unnecessary dolla
should be expended But we are opposed to tai
ing away local autonomy In school matters by fl
ing low, arbitrary constitutional limit beyor
which the peopfe cannot vote to tax themselv
even If they wish do it in the interest of bett
schools That is their business. In our iudgme
neither professional politicians corporate int
ests will be able to induce the people to sign awe
this birthright Perhaps they haven't asked the
to do so. Give the facts.