White Bluffs spokesman. [volume] (White Bluffs, Wash.) 1907-1938, 1926-10-22

laws the legislature would pass, but
we can judge what the proponents
of this dangerous amendment have in
mind, by examining the two measures
which they drew to be submitted to
the legislature.
1t is the opinion of the writer that
under the proposed law the Forestry
Board could Immediately remove half
the timber of the state from the tax
rolls, and sign contract guarantee
ing that it would not be taxed except
for yield tax, during the contract
period, which is left in the hands
of the State Forest Board. The legis-
lature could never change the con-
tract. The people could never change
it even by amending their conBtitu-
ton. The trend of our civilization is
constantly toward more public serv-
ices. We cannot tell what the state
will be doing hundred years from
now. 1t may be necessary for II to
perform services which will double
the taxes. Most economists predict
this course, but we in our lack of
foresight would have signed away to
the timber owner one of our greatest
assets, saying, "If taxes increase You
need not pay your portion of the
states up-keep."
In fact, the yield tax was first
placed at 121A%, then raised to 209o,
and it is yet an open question as to
what a just rate would be, yet they,
in our present ignorance, would take
a new principle and an unproven rate
and fasten it. upon the state under
contract which the legislature itself
could not change.
And who is to do this? The State
Forestry Board, made up of the Gov
ernor, the chief forester the director
of conservation, the dean of forestry
of the University of Washington, and
the land commissioner. Three out
five votes in the hands of one man.
Suppose we had for governorfa large
timber holder. The result for him
self and his friends could easily be
set at millions each year.
1t Is argued that thirteen states
have similar laws. This is not true.
Other states have wisely substituted
yield tax for property tax ON tim
Der, but most of them have not per-
mitted the right of taxation to be
contracted away. This is expressly
forbidden in most state constitutions
and 1t is the opinion of the writer
that 1t is the most dangerous tax
proposal EVER MADE IN THIS
STATE. Why should the timberman
ask 1t any more than the investor in
a farm or in a business block should
ask that he be guaranteed that the
state or county would never raise
taxes? A general constitutional
amendment permitting the classified
ton of property for purposes of taxa
ton would permit everything the
proposed amendment covers except
the power to contract away the right
of taxation, the one thing which
should not be granted.
We submit that under the proposed
amendment it would be possible to
pass law under which the owner of
thousand acres of logged-off lands
adjacent to one of our large cities
could have land taken entirely off
the tax rolls, ostensibly holding it for
purposes of reforestation that a con-
tract could be entered into holding
this land off the tax rolls for many
generations and that the legislature
could not change the terms of the
contract. We admit that it is I'M
likely that such law would pass, but
every session makes many mistakes
and such law or amendment could
easily be slipped through. Ordinarily
eiAC legislature CAL COTToCL us errors
at the next session, but under the
proposed amendment the right to
change would be contracted away and
the damage could not be repaired.
Changing the constitution would
not cure the damage for the courts
have ruled time and again that the
terms of contract cannot be upset
by retroactive legislation.
Therein lies the danger in the pro-
posed amendment. Strangely enough
the proponents and opponents of the
amendment are all working for the
same results, but we believe that the
proponents have overreached the
bounds of safety and wisdom in in
Guiding the dangerous contract fea-
ture. The only way is to vote down
the amendment and submit a safe
one.
A. S. Goss.