Vol. 55

No. 4

OR the third time within a few

FOR

years the voters have refused to ratify a Constitutional Amendment enlarging the power of the Legislature to distribute taxes more widely.

The slogans "wide open," "blank check" joined with the popular cry for economy are probably responsible for 40,737 votes in the negative and only 20,006 in the affirmative.

Now that the Amendment is disposed of we are still confronted with the fact that in 1922 tangible property paid a tax of $11,000,000, while an equal amount of intangible property paid only $300,000.

All are agreed that this gross injustice should at once be rectified.

Only two methods of lightening the burden on real estate are possible. The first lies through reduced appropriations by the Legislature. Economy should therefore be the watchword of this session. But in that connection it is well to remember that state expenditures represent only 11% of our entire tax burden; the remaining 89% is due to town and county appropriations. The second, and more hopeful, method by which the Legislature can relieve tangible property is by finding new sources of revenue to carry a part of the load which now falls almost exclusively on visible property.

How this can be accomplished under the present limited powers of the

Legislature is the conundrum which the Ways and Means Committee of the House is now trying to solve.

In order to clearly determine the exact extent of these powers the Legislature has asked the Supreme Court whether it can levy a tax on gasoline, or a graduated tax on inheritances as is done in most other states and whether it can tax the income from investments at a higher rate than is levied on the principal of other property. The answer to these questions will determine the measure of relief which this Legislature can accomplish.

The Sheppard-Towner Bill THIS bill, which provides for the co

operation of the state with the Federal Bureau in the promotion of the welfare and hygiene of maternity and infancy in New Hampshire, is still before the House. It has the support in New Hampshire as well as in other states of a large number of women. The three women legislators, for instance, are solidly behind it, The principal women's organizations in the state have endorsed it, and recently a statement in its defense appeared in the press signed by such women as Mrs. McDuffee, President of the New Hampshire Federation of Women's Clubs, Mrs. Lesure, President of the New Hampshire League of Woman Voters, Mrs. Abbott, President of the New Hampshire Women's

Christian Temperance Union, and Mrs. Henderson, Vice-President of the New Hampshire Parent-Teachers' Association.

"This resolution," writes Dr. Bancroft, Chairman of the State Board of Charities and Corrections, and exPresident of the New Hampshire. Medical Association, "stands for the conservation of human life. We have felt the necessity of conservation of natural resources for the past twenty years-forest wealth, mineral wealth, agricultural resources, etc. This bill represents the most important conservation of all, namely, that of human life itself. Let us be consis

tent.

"If Federal aid is desirable in securing healthy swine, cattle, and trees, of how much more importance is the savage of human life!"

Some Other Bills of Interest

THE

HE last week of March has been a busy one for the House and several bills of importance have been disposed of. Two measures, dear to the hearts of the Democrats, the bill abolishing the women's poll tax and the "Home Rule Bill," providing for the abolishment of the New Hampshire Police Commissioners and calling for election by popular vote, passed the House after a bitter partisan debate and on strictly party lines There was a moment in the career of the poll tax bill when it looked as though, for the first time this year a Democratic bill of importance would be defeated. Ex-Governor Bass opened the debate by defending a compromise measure which provided for a $2.00 poll tax for both men and women, instead of $3.00, and then called for an extra tax of $2.00 to be placed on men for one year, which would be sufficient to complete the payment of the soldiers' bonus. When the Democratic leader, Nathaniel Martin, to every one's surprise rose in support of this compromise,

the chances began to look very badly for abolishing the Women's Poll Tax. But after a tie vote, in the roll call which followed the Democrats passed the measure by a majority of 11. Both this bill and the "Home Rule Bill" will undoubtedly meet defeat in the Senate. The Sunday base ball bill, however, which would permit uncommercial sports to be played Sunday and over which there has been considerable controversy, met with a very decisive defeat.

To the casual observer the decision of the House concerning the election. of one of the Representatives from Concord was most extraordinary. For in spite of the fact that on official recount Mr. Carleton, a Democrat, received seven less votes than Mr. Kelly, a Republican, the House decided by a vote of 159 to 142 to seat Mr. Carleton. The Republicans at least were amused by Mr. Lyford's protest when he declared that he had "found nowhere in the Democratic platform that it is necessary to seat a Democrat who was never elected."

Still the 48-Hour Issue

HOUGH no one in the New Hamp

shire Legislature believes, for a minute, that anything more can be done to settle the unsettled 48-hour issue, yet we hear trom time to time of attempts on the part of Repubicans to carry out their platform pledge of establishing a fact-finding commission to study the 48-nour question. There was, for instance, the fact-finding resolution introduced by Mr. Aiken of Franklin and supported by exGovernor Bass which was killed by a vote of 82 to 156, and then there was the Ripley fact-finding resolution, providing for a commission of five persons to be appointed by the Supreme Court to study this question and report to the 1925 Legislature. It passed the Senate but will certainly be killed in the House.

N

EARLY one hundred years ago a group of citizens living toward the outskirts of Andover, Salisbury, Northfield, and Sanbornton, presented to the Legislature a petition that they be allowed to form a new town, to include parts of each of the four villages. They claimed that, whereas it was extremely difficult for them to participate in the affairs of their towns. as matters then stood, they could readily do so were the new town center at the junction of the various boundaries. They pointed out, moreover, the development of industry along the river. "There have recently been erected," they said, "on the banks of the Winnipesaukee River; within the limits of the proposed new town, a paper-mill and town, a paper-mill and cotton manufactory, both of which are. now in full and successful operation. From the great falls in this and other streams in that vicinity and the inex

haustible supply of water, there is reason to believe that very extensive manufacturing establishments and other works requiring waterpower will, at no distant period, be erected at or near this spot, in addition to those already there."

The arguments were logical and the legislature committee reported favorably on the petition; but because of the keen opposition in the various towns the bill was jockied back and forth for four years. Not until December 24, 1828, did the new town receive permission to organize.

The general of the fight, Judge G. W. Nesmith, whose name stands out in Franklin's history as one of her most public-spirited citizens, had cannily arranged that the boundaries should be drawn to include the birthplace of Daniel Webster; so that the "godlike" Daniel, having been born in Salisbury, became, by legislative decree, a Frank