The Ogden standard. [volume], November 04, 1918, LAST EDITION - 3:30 P.M., Image 3

About The Ogden standard. [volume] (Ogden City, Utah) 1913-1920

Image provided by: University of Utah, Marriott Library

                
4 il
j Here Is His Statement As Published In the - I J
J Deseret Evening f News, Nov. 2, 1918 J j
j I have been requested to write some of my views on the much"
j mooted subject of the proposed amendment to the State Oonstitu
f j tion regarding taxation of nrines. I respond on my own rcspons
j p ibility, solely as a citizen and a taxpayer.
; I do not wish to waste space in controverting assertions of
proponents of the amendment which are wide of the mark, and
Sfo Bhould have little if any weight upon the minds of intelligent pcr
' p sons. I regard the determination of the question as of the highest
, 3 importance. It cannot be rationally disputed that the main propo
; ffl fcition is put before the public in a very ambiguous form. Its pre-
H else meaning is understood by distinguished writers and readers
2$ in different ways. One class of critics understand it to mean that
: H the extraordinary power of taxation that it sets forth is lcarlycj
' W to be vested in the Board of Equalization, Other able minds in-!
'; lerprct it as to be one of the functions of the legislature. These op-
S posite opinions may possibly be taken without implying-any im
: ' 2g proper motive on the part of: the disputants on either side, but tho
h very fact that they exist appears to me to" be a strong argument.
1 $ against the adoption of the amendment. It is of so much conse-
U. quenco that eveiy voter upon it should know of a surety what it
: j really means.
S It matters .little whether the proposition is agreeable or
unacceptable to -the wealthy mine owner. If it is right, equitable!
i a and consistent with that umformity and equal bearing which
;' B should characterize taxation in all its forms, it should prevail,
: : y even if nnpleasant to some people and desirable to others; if other
i H wise it ougbt to be rejected- It may be, as claimed by many peo-
11 pic, that certain mining properties are not taxed at their full value,
g and therefore some means should be adopted and put in force to
J require justice and fair dealing, no matter whainay be displeased
, m or disposed to object. Tire idea of fixing values on property to
K p favor or oppress one particular class of property owners is inher
f H ently wi'ong and should not be continued, no matter how long it
. 1 may have been permitted. The difficulty of finding ithe real valuo
: m ef a metal mine must be admitted by fair minded investigators, but
it does not follow that this is an impossibility, nor can it bo placed
beyond the power and ability of wise and persistently thoughtful
brains to achieve. It may be a matter of time, deep thought and
practical experience. But this should surely be within the scope
as well as the capacity and authority of a carefully selected-legis-i
W lative assembly. To put unlimited power and authority to taxa
. H tion in the hands of an. appointed board or committee, or even a
; ( duly elected legislature, by constitutional authority strikes fair
W mmded people and those acquainted with constitutional power, as
m something outrageous and nnadmissible. The proposed amend-
ment selects one particular class of industries, to-wit; nietallifer
; K pus mining, out of all other working properties to be taxed, on -the
j' ffl basis of "some multix)le or submultiple of the net proceeds there
; M of." This is so indefinite, conveying no limitation, and suggesting
I m no method of arriving at real value, that it ought not to receive
w the support of thoughtful citizens.
Kj The plea is offered that unless this measure is adopted at
m once, we will lose for two years the revenue from the valuable
( fm mines which it is alleged ought to be paying vast amounts of taxes
:; m more than at present exacted, and therefore no time should be
; ' ffi llsec m PPosmj discussing and aiTanging a better system than
1' t B this amendment contemplates, and for that reason it should be
' m rushed through in a similar kind of haste as that in which it was
E concocted. It appears to me that if the voters fall in with this no
B tion they will be very much disappointed by the result, for while
B the courts of the staite would probably find it out of their power
JS lo pass on the questions that would certainly be raised as to the
m validity of the amendment, in all probability the whole matter
: woulclbe -taken up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and
anything like immediate financial results could not be reasonably
expected, ;
DELUDING- VOTERS
The repeated declaration of its proponents that the amend-
ment is "the only way," also that opposition to it means the sub- 1
stiiution of an income tax, is scarcely worthy of consideration.
The flaming headlines of articles scattered throught the State
"Mine Tax Amendment or State Income Tax, Which? is merely
something to delude the ordinary voter and create a false issue.
There is no proposition before the people as to the adpotion of an
income. tax measure or an.y other substitute, the people arc not re
quired to put forward some other plan than that proposed, they
are only to vote "yes" or "no" on the one proposition. It is true
that in arguing against the amendment Mr. Jesse Knight, to show
that there are other ways than the one proposed to meet the situa
tion, mentioned the power already in -the Legislature by the Con-(
sti tut ion to tax incojnes, but he did not say; as the scholastic pro
ponents avow that "we prefer to pay an income tax-" No such
expression is to be found in his straightforward document. This
brings the matter to the real point at issue, and excludes all the
roundabout, irrelevant arguments that have been put into the dis
cussion of the question, which is, shall this amendment be adopted
with all its improper authority, ambiguity and discord against the
general fundamental principles of just taxation, or shall Ave vote
"No," and leave the matter to be properly aujustcd by competent
legislation after thorough investigation?'
I have been asked by many friends to express my views on
this vexed but important question, and I do so as briefly as I can
with the little time and space at my command. "If I had longer
time I would have made this article shorter. ' ' I am opposed to the
amendment, not because I fail to see the need of a revision of our.
tax laws, or that I dispute the facts set forth by respected and'
valued friends as to the inequalities complained of, or would op
pose the striking out from our Constitution and laws the scheme
of taxation of mines by assessment of their "net proceeds" and
the adoption of some provision to bring all classes of property un
der taxation at their REAL VALUE, to be estimated and de
termined by law; but because I am utterly opposed to the in
trusion into our State Constitution of the remarkable provision
that is now under discussion, and which I regard as a distinct con
tradiction oMhe opening words of the amendment offered, and
classed as No. 1, namely:
"The legislature shall provide by law a uniform and equal
rate of assessment and taxation on all properly in the state ac
cording to its value in money," etc.
UNFAIR AND MISLEADING-
The allege d motives of the , opponents of the amendment
should not figure in the sum of their arguments. It is not either
fair or decent to charge or insinuate that they are "paid agents of
the niining interests." It is certainly false in most instances and
possibly so in all. I and others are not greatly concerned in the
mere effects upon the rich mining concerns by the number of
multiples or submultiples that may used in the doubling or treb
ling or sextupling or octupling of their net proceeds. But wc are
concerned in the disfigurement of the body of our State constitu
tion by this excrescence of undefined and unlimited taxing power.
Such authority should not be given to any board or body in the
State. This has not the slightest reference to the ability or integ
rity of the persons now composing those official organizations.
The attempt to intimate that such is intended, springs from
malevolence or ignorance, and are lised to divert the minds of the
reading public from the only real issue today.
The blunderof using the term "net profits" as synonymous SS
with "net proceeds," when their meaning is greatly different as E i
applied to the earnings of the mines to be taxed, is scarcely worthy Egl i
of notice except for the .evident intent to misrepresent the case H !
against the mine-owners and the amounts at which they should be B r
taxed- But for argument's sake suppose we admit all the ex- .8
travagant estimates of what thc3r should par and what they ought H
to have paid into State treasury, what reason is thereby furnished H - , jj
for. the adoption of such a malformed mass of incongmity as that l
denominated Amendment No. 3 ? The biggest part of the disputes K jjjj
that have been published has occurred over the exact meaning of I
"Amendment No. 3." The language used is to the effect that m '
ALL OTHER mining properties but the metalliferous mmes, h
the net incomes of which are marked for multipled taxation, sliall m jj'-
be taxed AS PROVIDED BY LAW, but the exceptions are to be 9
assessed and, taxed by the board of equalization. This clearly in- m
ti mates that those exceptions are NOT to be taxed as provided by H j
law, and most of the proponents of the document argue vehement- 9 ;
ly and repeatedly that the legislature and not the board of equal- i
ization must attend to that business. The editorial advice of The j
Deseret News of October 19 is so apropos, right here, that I will g
take the liberty of quoting it: j
"The voter is called upon to accept or reject these amend- g j
monts ior what they are and for what they say not for what gg
somebody argues that they mean. If they do not say what they $ i
mean they ought to be rejected; if they do not mean what they say j
it is superfluous to go into long cHscussions on possible further jj " j
meanings that only bewilder unci confuse the ordinary reader." I
Two years ago an amendment aiming at the same mark, but $f I
with such accuracy that ordinary people could easily arrive at its .
meaning, was cogently commented upon by the Deseret News, and p j
I here insert a few lines of that editorial, because they meet the g I
same specious promise to the fanning folks that is now offered I
with flaming capitals in the words V.OTE "YES" TO THE M
AMENDMENT AND THEREBY REDUCE TAXES. The News
said:
"But what assurance is there that even if the mines are more
heavily taxed, the farmers will get off more lightly? Nothing in h j
the amendment holds out any such, promise. Perhaps there are p j
inequalities in present taxation methods; but does this amendment '&
offer a sure cure for them? Certainly if there is injustice, it can g
be corrected without striking down the fundamental principles M
of taxation and without destroying the basic and equitable propo- j
sition of uniformity and equality of taxation," p j
I close with the last words of the editorial in The Deseret j
News of two years ago with my hearty indorsement of its scnti- 0 i
ments, and of its advice, which was accepted then and is of far j
greater application nowi m j
"The framers of the State's charter did not do their work
slightingly or blunderingly, and it behooves us today to be cau- gj
tious about trying to tinker too much with their excellent handi- j
work. With the progress of time, -changes may be found neces-
sary, but these should be undertaken only with the most mature s j
consideration, and with the most scrupulous care. The constitu- j i
tion is the basis of our laws, not an instrument upon which to en- j !
graft laws or to try experiments. Above allits safeguards should m ! )
be preserved inviolable, for it is the anchor of our welfare and se- H
curity. Legislatures may come and legislatures may go, and so m
also with statutes and enactments but the constitution stands, m if
The proposed amendment of article 13, relating to revenue and j
taxation, should be voted down!" I
CHARLES W. PENROSE. M
November 2. - f $ j
H " FRANK E. DOHERTY. ' H j
j (Political Advertisement. ggglP 1