UNIV. OF CALIFORNIA

THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 1918.

101

Mr. Brown of Manchester.

There is plenty of law to insist upon and to compel the taxation of all taxable property at its full and true value.

Mr. Doyle of Nashua. I think that is all we want and we have the right men, I guess, in office.

Mr. Brown of Manchester. — There is another thing this Committee might well remember. It is this: if you desire to exempt woodland property, you can do it today. If you want to make an absolute exemption of growing trees of any sort or kind, it can be done under the Constitution as it stands.

Still another thing comes to my mind in talking about the taxation of forest property. When you begin to tax it, it is nothing but sprout land and is worth three or four dollars an acre in Stratford, as Mr. Hutchins says, perhaps four or five dollars an acre in some other towns, and that is all it is taxed for. For fifteen or twenty years, there is not much growth on the land. the valuations have to be low and the taxes light although the assessments are at full value. There is nothing oppressive until the timber gets to have some size, until it is at least twenty years of age. Then for the next twenty years or until maturity, whenever that may be, the owner can afford to pay upon a full assessment.

I am owner of a little woodland myself, and being a nonresident of the town where it is situated, I do not believe I escape anything in taxes. I am glad to pay full taxes assessed on the full and true value of the property. I hope the selectmen will continue to tax it in that way, and I do not think they need any suggestions in that regard.

Mr. Tyng of Ashland.· Mr. President and Gentleman, this is a Constitutional Convention. The subject before us is the powers of the Legislature. We have had a long discussion on this timber question, and all of us want to be enlightened, and some of us have found enlightenment very difficult. There are arguments on both sides, and they make no particular appeal to us wno do not know anything at all about the lumber business. It is a question of giving to the Legislature of New Hampshire the power which nearly every Legislature in every Country and every State has, that is, the power of taxing lumber, which, owing to certain things, has prevented the Legislature from acting directly in regard to it. If that can be done, very good and well. The whole general question is, Should further authority be given to the Legislature in the matter of taxation? Now it seems to me we are incompetent to pass upon the questions that have been brought before us today. We have gone out of our way, and it seems to me, whether I follow the arguments

of one side or the arguments of the other side, the inevitable result is that we must go to the Legislature, to whom belongs the power to deal with the question.

Mr. Ayres of Franconia. — Is it the pleasure of the Convention that I should have a minute? I don't want to impose upon the Convention except to show why timber in the North Country is cut off in the manner in which it is. The gentleman who is Chairman of the Tax Commission and President of this body, for whom we all have great respect, has said that the timber in the northern part of the State, in the unorganized towns, where the taxes are low, is sometimes cut off more than it is in the organized towns where the taxes are high and the timber isn't cut off. Gentlemen, I must ask you to bear this simple fact in mind; that there was by the census figures of 1900, which are the last we have on this subject, twenty-nine million dollars invested in the pulp and paper business in Northern New Hampshire alone, and in New England it was one hundred and forty million dollars. This enormous industry depends upon the spruce of Northern Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont in large degree. These figures have been very much enlarged at this time, there being probably two hundred million dollars investment dependent upon the timber in Northern New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont. Probably sixty million dollars is invested in the paper and pulp business, including the timber lands in Northern New Hampshire. The owners must keep their mills in operation, and taxes become a secondary consideration. The owners cut where their business dictates.

Mr. Schoolcraft of Dorchester. Are the timber interests driving for a lower or higher rate of taxation?

Mr. Ayres of Franconia.· -I don't know. It was reported here yesterday by one of the large interests that they do not care whether it is settled one way or the other. I believe this is the attitude of all the people from the northern country. This is a matter that primarily concerns four-fifths of our people in the southern part of the State and only one-fifth in the northern part. In the north, they employ their men and cut where it is the most convenient for their large business, irrespective of whether the taxes are high or low. In the southern part, it is an entirely different situation, and I submit to you, gentlemen, if four times sixty million dolars were invested in pine interests in the southern part of New Hampshire the tax question would be settled. The reason why the tax situation is different in the northern part of the State from that in the southern part is because there are sixty million dollars invested in the pulp and paper interest in the north.

Mr. Hoyt of Hanover.—I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Would he consider today a large majority of the farmers and mechanics are in favor of this change? Would he be willing to leave it to the farmers to decide this question?

Mr. Ayres of Franconia.—Mr. Hoyt asks me if I think the farmer and mechanic is in favor of the change which I advocate and if I would be wiling to leave this question to the farmers to decide. I would say, so far as the mechanic is concerned, I don't think he has thought about it, and I am sure the farmer hasn't thought of it as he should and he hasn't seen the interest to himself as clearly as he should. I am aware that they have not favored this amendment, but again 1 believe it is because they have not given the subject full attention. I had the pleasure of submitting a brief article to the National Tax Association, reprinted from their Bulletin. Its title is "Forest Taxation and the Farmer," and I have said here why the farmer is worse off if the timber is taken away as a source of taxation. Copies will be sent to you. The farmer should encourage everything that ought to be taxed; he should encourage the taxation of intangibles; he should encourage the proper taxation of timber, for if the timber is swept off the burden comes back on him. You cannot escape that argument.

On a viva voce vote the motion of Mr. Brennan of Peterborough, to amend the motion of Mr. Hutchins of Stratford, did not prevail.

Mr. Ayres of Franconia called for a division.

Mr. Page of Portsmouth. Will the Chair state the question? The Chairman. - For the information of the Committee I will state the question: the question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Peterborough, Mr. Brennan, which is to strike out the word "not" in the motion made by the gentleman from Stratford, Mr. Hutchins, so that the motion, as amended, will read, "that this Committee do now rise and report the resolution with the recommendation that it be agreed to."

Mr. Emerson of Milford.—Am I right in understanding that those who believe the Legislature should have power to fix the value of lumber for taxation should vote yes on this motion?

The Chairman.-The gentleman is correct in his understanding.

A division being had 122 gentlemen voted in the affirmative and 159 gentlemen voted in the negative and the motion of Mr. Brennan of Peterborough did not prevail.

Question being on the motion of Mr. Hutchins of Stratford,

On a viva voce vote the motion of Mr. Hutchins of Stratford prevailed.

IN CONVENTION.

(The President in the Chair.)

Mr. Snow of Rochester, for the Committee of the Whole to whom was referred Resolution No. 1, Relating to the Taxation of Growing Wood and Timber, having considered the same, report the resolution with the recommendation that it be not agreed to by the Convention.

On a viva voce vote the report of the Committee was accepted and the recommendation adopted.

On motion of Mr. Quimby of Concord, the following resolution was adopted:

Resolved, That the appointment of Frank L. Aldrich of Manchester as messenger be vacated and M. J. Diamond of Danville be appointed messenger of this Convention.

Mr. Lyford of Concord moved that the Convention do now adjourn.

Mr. Lyford of Concord withdrew his motion.

Mr. Streeter of Concord moved to amend the Rules of the Convention as follows:

Amend Rule 6 by adding after the words "day certain " the words, "fourth, to indefinitely postpone," and strike out the word, "fourth," and the word, "fifth," and insert in place thereof the words "fifth" and "sixth fifth" and "sixth " respectively, so that

the same as amended shall read:

6. When any question is under debate no motion shall be received, but, first, to adjourn; second, to lay on the table; third, to postpone to a day certain; fourth, to indefinitely postpone; fifth, to commit; sixth, to amend which several motions shall take precedence in the order in which they are arranged. Motions to adjourn and lay on the table shall be decided without debate.

66

Also amend Rule 11, by adding thereto the words " and the rule relating to the motion to indefinitely postpone," so that the same shall read as follows:

11. The Convention may resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole at any time on the motion of a member; and in forming a Committee of the Whole, the President shall leave the chair and appoint a chairman to preside in Committee; and the rules of proceeding in Convention shall be observed in Committee of the Whole, except the rule limiting the times of speaking, the rule relating to calls for the yeas and nays, and the rule relating to the motion to indefinitely postpone.

Mr. Streeter withdrew his motion to amend the rules as above.

Mr. Cobleigh of Nashua offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That this Convention take up, consider and dispose of amendments proposing changes in the Constitution relating to taxation; that all other amendments proposed be printed and lie upon the table unless the Convention shall