and that was within half a mile of the village; and he just uses You it as a shooting range and lets it grow up to wild land. encourage these wealthy people to come in and buy up our wild land by not having them pay a tax, and it seems to me you are just putting a premium on abandoning these farms; I tell you, gentlemen, we need the farms and the men back on the farms in these times, raising potatoes and beans and sheep and cattle, more than we do to encourage these wealthy people to come in and buy up the land and turn it out wild. They won't pay any income tax on these lands if the pine is growing, and why, if it is such a poor investment and the taxes are eating up all the profit on the growth, are they so anxious to buy the land? I know some that were frightened because there wasn't going to be any wood and timber by and by. I can remember when I was a boy they used to say: "What shall be do when there is no coal? what shall we do when the kerosene is exhausted?' Some have been worrying about it ever since. Just see what substitutes are being used to take the place of coal. They discovered electricity; and the Connecticut River Power Company is generating electricity enough to take the place of the consumption of 300,000 tons of coal a year; and I read only a short time ago in the Review of Reviews that George M. Mitchell of the United States Geological Bureau, has discovered a substance from which gasolene can be made, and there are large quantities of it in Nevada and Wyoming.

was.

Considerable has been said about lumber being higher than it That is true; but is it higher on the stump, very much higher? I say no. I have interviewed lumber men who say now that the increase in price is due to the labor problem, that is, the increased expense of labor. Then the substitutes for lumber. They are not using as much lumber in ships as they used to; they are using steel and cement; they are not using as much in making buildings; they are using cement, brick, etc. Passenger cars and freight cars are being built of steel; and so you can follow it clear down through to the farm and your grindstone frame or the pail you buy your white lead in. Something else is being substituted for lumber.

I don't believe, gentlemen, that the common farmer in this audience or his constituents at home, who have little wood lots, is anxious to see the taxes reduced on them and the taxes put upon the rest of his property, when it is going to reduce the taxes on these big estates of five or six or ten thousand acres. Do you know, gentlemen, one twentieth of all the real estate in the United States is now owned by 1,694 men. Do we want to pass any law or make any arrangement or submit any amendment

here that is going to encourage the purchase of such large estates by a few wealthy men, perhaps non-residents, and in time encourage such a situation here as has prevailed in Europe? Abraham Lincoln said: "God must have loved the common people or he would not have made so many of them." I am speaking here in the interests of the common people.

Mr. Brennan of Peterborough. - I know the delegate from Hancock to be a very honest, reputable gentleman who would not knowingly deceive this Convention. He has made an error. The figures of the State vote are given by him wrong end to and his county and his town do not strongly support him in the position he has taken before this Convention. As to the statement of the vote which he gave, I wish to call attention to the fact that on Amendment No. 3, which was similar to the one we are now discussing, the State vote on its adoption was not as he gave it, but was 23,108 yes, 12,636 no; that of Hillsborough County, his county and mine, was largely yes, 5,807 to 3,180; that his own town of Hancock was only 5 majority no, while my town of Peterborough was 66 majority yes.

While I am on my feet, I wish to express my views very briefly on this matter. We may differ as to just what changes should be made by the Legislature; we might indeed as legislators differ as to just how that power should be exercised, but we should here in this Convention decide this question, namely: Should conditions remain just as they are or should there be come kind of a change made, or some further grant of Legislative power given in matters of taxation? That is the question. If we come to a Legislature, which has such extension of taxing power, we must then determine upon the justice and wisdom of exercising that power, the details of which will have to be worked out there; the question will then be as to just what change if any should be made by the Legislature relative to taxing timber, intangibles, etc. But it will simplify matters here if each of us asked the questions: Should there be any change in present conditions? Should we give any further taxing power to the Legislature? Those who answer no, believing that the present Constitutional curb should remain, will be on one side; and those who believe there should be some change, while perhaps not entirely clear just what the details should be, but convinced that present conditions are bad, will be on the other side. It seems to me if we divide ourselves on that preliminary question, we will make more progress than would be accomplished in going into the details at first. Of course, we may discuss these details somewhat in determining this question, but, Mr. Chairman, on this particular matter, I believe almost every person, in this hall has discussed and

heard this question of extension of Legislative power discussed, and I am satisfied that most of the delegates have made up their minds, not perhaps just what the details should be but as to whether or not there should be any change in our Constitution, giving more power to the Legislature regarding taxation. I suggest that we keep our eye upon the target and discuss the question as to whether or not any change in the Constitution in this regard is desirable. Those who will say we do not want any change will vote one way and those who believe Legislative power should be increased will vote the other. I am of the opinion that our Legislature should be given larger discretion in the classification of property for taxation.

Mr. Streeter of Concord. — May I ask a question? I think other members of the Convention as well as myself, must be confused by the figures which you and Mr. Duncan have been giving us. I want to ask if you are sure you are right in your statement? Mr. Brennan. I am quite sure I am right; I read the record of votes from the Journal.

-

Mr. Streeter. - As I understand it, the way you read it, there was a majority in favor of about 10,000.

Mr Brennan. -I will say to my Brother Streeter that there was a large majority in favor, but it is necessary to have a twothirds vote to adopt an amendment to the Constitution; there was not a two-thirds vote, but there was a large majority vote. Mr. Amey of Lancaster. - It lacked about 700 of two-thirds. Mr. Duncan of Hancock.—I want to apologize if I have made a mistake. I will say that this matter has been discussed at our Old Home Day gatherings; it has been discussed at the Pomona Grange in Hillsborough County. The people of Hancock are in the habit of sending a Democrat to the House, but although they nominated a very strong Democrat against me, I got almost two votes to one exactly on this issue, and I take it the town is behind me.

Now just one other thing; I wonder why it is 420 or 430 men here are not supposed to be as clever as the men that come to the Legislature; are not supposed to know as much or to be able to discuss this matter? I wondered, as I listened to those who believe in this project, they have had preliminary meetings, they have an organization, and they have sent out circulars, this, that and the other and I wondered if it occurred to them that in the Legislature they could slide the matter through a committee and gext a favorable report and the people in the house would not have much chance to discuss it; and they could push it through the Legislature easier than they could here, where everybody can speak their mind. After they failed to get it

through the last Convention or failed to get the matter approved, in the closing hours of the Legislature when Felker was Governor, they tried this very thing, and Charles O'Neil said: "It is not right; it is not fair to the people of New Hampshire to try and put through such a momentous proposition without giving the people plenty of time to discuss the matter and be heard upon it." More than that, some thought it would not be Constitutional. They had people here to try to push it around so it would go. 1 can remember when people came here and stayed all winter in the "Third House" and nothing was said about it, but lately they have to register and say what they are here for and what they get. Among the records there is this item: "The New Hampshire Timber Growers' Association: paid F. H. Bullard, $450." I don't know who he is; perhaps it was all right; but it simply shows there was money being paid to push this thing through. I wasn't certain of the sentiment when 1 got here, but I have heard a lot of talk, for my hearing is good if my sight is not. I find a lot of people who don't believe in this measure, and I find there are a lot of people here who believe that today we ought to put our foot down upon it so it won't bob up again in the Legislature or anywhere else. I believe there are people here, just the same as I am, who were elected on this issue to come here and do what they could to kill it out and give the common people a chance to keep their farms and live on them.

Mr. Mason of Keene. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, I don't own any pine timber and I don't expect to. 1 don't know very much about the question of taxation, but I was very much interested in the figures that were given a few minutes ago, and having experimented somewhat with these figures, in connection with another resolution, I tested them and found the same results that the previous speaker has found; but it seems to me you cannot emphasize that fact any too much at the present time. What was the attitude of the people of the State of New Hampshire on this question the last time they voted upon it? In the first place, it was presented to them tied up with the question of the taxation of intangibles and bank stock, and I think perhaps that alone would have caused the defeat of either one of these propositions, because there were people who were opposed to each of these questions separately; but in spite of the fact that it was tied up, as it was, with the taxation of intangibles and bank stock, 23,108 people voted in favor, and 12,636 voted against it. If 23,828 had voted for it, it would have been carried; that is, if 720 more people had voted for this measure in the whole State of New Hampshire, the amendment

would have been carried in 1912, by a two-thirds vote. Let's fix that in our minds; if only 720 more people had voted for it or 311 people had changed their minds on that vote, tied up as it was with the intangibles and bank stock, it would have been carried. As I say, I don't know much about pine timber or taxation, but if the people of New Hampshire came as near to passing this amendment at that time it is only fair to give them a chance to vote on the question again, and I hope the motion will be carried.

Mr. Hutchins of Stratford. I assure you, gentlemen, that I will not detain you long but I have a private opinion in regard to the taxation of timber lands, growing wood and timber, and my opinion is based upon personal experience of nearly thirty years as a lumberman. To preclude my remarks, I will say that I am an extensive timber owner, myself.

I can assure you further, gentlemen, that if you look through the three northern counties of the State, Coös, Grafton and Carrol, which constitutes nearly 50% of the area of New Hampshire, you will find that nine-tenths of the men that have become wealthy or nine-tenths of the estates that amount to anything financially that have come into our Probate Courts derived their wealth directly or indirectly from timber projects. They have not suffered under the present rule of taxation. If the selectmen throughout the State will enforce their good judgment and show their gray matter properly, there is no danger of burdening anybody, in fact there is a way of interpreting the present tax law and there is still another way of interpreting the same law.

The method adopted by the Town of Stratford, and I feel that it is a just method, is as follows: The selectmen figure the acreage of a lot and if a man has a few thousand acres of timber they figure the value of the land proper for the purpose of growing timber upon it, and it is certainly worth more when it is a tract of growing lumber or mature lumber worth $25 per thousand than it is when it is a growing tract and lumber is worth only $10 per thousand.

We tax our lands from $3 to $4 per acre without growth, which I should say, on the whole, is satisfactory to everybody; and if we examine our lands and find that there is nothing growing upon them, then we do not tax them more than the land value proper, but if there is any more value to it, we tax what we find in addition to the land value. If it becomes a property of sufficient value to buy and to sell for the purpose of commercial gain we tax it for as near its true value as we can determine, taking into consideration location and market value as of April 1st each year, and this we feel is just, and 'we are entitled to