ON

N February 14th the much talked about 48-hour week measure for women and children passed the House by a vote of 288 to 163. Twenty-eight Republicans joined the Democrats in support of this bill, while eighteen Democrats took sides with the Republicans in voting "No." The bill then came before the Senate. Many were the queries; many the prophesies as to what this body would do. But when on February 28th the bill was defeated by a vote of ten to twelve no one was at all surprised. It was expected from the beginning, and it is exactly what most people foresaw when the Democratic House majority refused to co-operate with the Republican Senate by accepting the fact-finding commission plan introduced by Mr. Bass.

And so ends the most controversal issue, the most bitter fight of this legislature. Many will sigh with relief that this bill has been disposed of for a time at least. But two years from now comes another election at which will be chosen not only a legislature but also a President and a United States Senator. Already the Democrats who believe they won this election on the 48-hour question are enthusiastically preparing to make this law the political issue of the 1924 campaign. That it will be for the

next few years the principal political issue and that Republicans must be prepared and ready to meet it is un

avoidable and certain.

The Amendment to the

Constitution

OR the first time since the conven

FOR

ing of the legislature the 48-hour issue has a rival in interest and public attention. The proposed amendment to the constitution, which will give the legislature power to reorganize the state tax system, now holds the center of the stage in Concord.

On January 31st the House with the large majority of three hundred and nine to forty-two voted to call the Constitutional Convention. A few days later the Senate passed the resolution, and on February 17th the Constitutional Convention met and in a few hours' time voted to submit this measure to the people on townmeeting day, March 13th.

It is a curious fact that, with a Democratic House, a Republican Senate, the Governor, the Constitutional Convention, and such an organization as the New Hampshire Farm Bureau all ardently supporting this amendment, the majority of the press throughout the state, led by the Manchester Union, is violently and actively opposing it.

That there should be a re-organiza

tion and a reform of taxation in New Hampshire everyone agrees. The taxing power of our constitution was fixed in 1784, at a time when only physical and tangible property existed. Since then, intangible property has grown to be equal in value to tangible property. But, on account of the limitations placed on our legislature, this intangible property, such as stocks and bonds, cannot be made to bear its fair share of the tax burden. The result is that such property as real estate, livestock, etc. has to carry, not only its own share of taxes, but a large proportion of the taxes which should be carried by intangible property.

For instance, though it is true that there is practically an equal amount of tangible and intangible property in this state, yet in 1922 real estate paid a tax of $11,000,000, while bonds and notes, bank stocks and corporate stock paid only $100,000.

There is no disagreement as to the injustice and serious menace to the prosperity of the property owners, large and small, that results from this condition. There is no disagreement as to the necessity of remedying this situation. The disagreement arises arises from the wording of the amendment. Its opponents claim that this wording gives the legislature too much power. They do not trust the legislature and fear radical action with the passage of a general income tax if this amendment is accepted by the people.

This amendment, they declare, to be "wide open" and that, as the Manchester Union says, its effect would be to give the legislature "complete, unlimited authority to draw upon the resources and income of the citizens of the state whenever, however, in what amount they see fit." To this the supporters reply that the proposed amendment in no way gives such power to the legislature. The fact, they argue, that under this amendment any bill before becoming law.

must receive the approval of not only the legislature but the Senate, the governor and the Supreme Court furnishes checks and balances enough to insure the people against any hasty or radical tax legislation and they point to the fact that in this opinion they are upheld by such eminent legal authorities as Judge James Remick and Judge Charles Corning.

While such papers as the Laconia Democrat, the Granite State Free News, the Exeter News, the Milford Cabinet, and finally, the Manchester Union are all writing editorials denouncing this amendment, and appealing to the people to defeat it, the majority of the House of Representatives and many prominent men are with equal enthusiasm supporting and speaking in its favor. A group of men, for instance, including Raymond B. Stevens, Judge Charles Corning, George M. Putnam, President New Hampshire Farm Bureau, Senator Benjamin H. Orr, Senator Walter Tripp, Ex-Governor Albert O. Brown, John R. John R. McLane, Speaker William J. Ahern, Judge James W. Remick, John G. Winant, James O. Lyford, and Ex-Gov. Robert P. Bass, recently made a joint statement which received wide publicity. "This amendment," they announced, "would settle all questions as to the legality of a graduated inheritance tax, and would enable the legislature safely to impose reasonable rates on inheritances. Also it would give our legislature power to levy a tax on gasolene, which has already been enacted in fourteen states and is being considered by other neighboring states in New England. The additional revenue so obtained would make it possible to reduce the unfair burden laid

upon real estate and tangible property by reducing direct state tax....The purpose of the amendment is not to give the legislature more money to spend but to enable it to distribute the existing burden

more widely and equally...

"The proposed amendment should not be regarded as 'wide-open.' In no sense does it remove all restrictions from the Legislature. The word 'reasonable' is still retained

and the Supreme Court would undoubtedly overrule any tax law that was unjust, arbitrary, or confiscatory. Any new tax law would have to be passed by the House, by the Senate, signed by the Governor, and finally upheld by the Supreme Court. This amendment in no sense enlarges the power of the Legislature to appropriate money. It has unlimited power now to appropriate money. It does, however, give the Legislature the power to equalize and fairly to distribute taxes and make all classes of property bear their fair share of the public burden.

"Neither is this proposed amendment new or revolutionary. It would merely give to our Legislature the same power to distribute the burden of taxation equitably that is exercised by the Legislature of most of the other states of the Union."

The Manchester Union and

ONE

Mr. Lyford

NE of the spicy occurrences in connection with a fight over the proposed constitutional amendment has been a lively passage of words between Mr. Lyford and the Manchester Union. It all started with a news article in the Manchester Union on February 20th which accused Mr. Lyford of sending out 130,000 circulars in support of this amendment at the expense of the citizens of New Hampshire. This aroused Mr. Lyford's ire, and he informed the legislature that these circulars had been printed at the request of the legislative department who in turn had been directed by the Constitutional Convention "to prepare and furnish to the Secretary of State....a statement

of reasons for the submission of this amendment." Whereupon the House unanimously and enthusiastically passed a resolution endorsing Mr. Lyford's action.

This little controversy has continued with unabated energy. Finally Raymond Stevens of Landaff was drawn in when the Manchester Union charged him with favoring a general income tax. In answer to this Mr. Stevens, speaking before the House, said, "It is very improbable that any income tax would ever be imposed in New Hampshire which would tax wages and farmers' incomes."

"There are two forms of income tax," he declared. "One a general income tax upon all incomes, which may be either a substitute for a general property tax or in addition to it, the second, a limited income tax, which is supplemental to the property tax and aims to secure a fair contribution from those classes which are not reached by the ordinary property tax. It is this limited form of income tax which I have advocated....If this amendment is adopted I hope to see this legislature pass such a limited income tax, and also increase the rates of taxation upon inheritances and levy a tax upon gasolene. None of these reforms can be made without an amendment to the constitution.

"I hope," he continues, "sufficient additional revenue may be secured so that the direct state tax may be wholly or at least mostly abolished. This will automatically reduce the burden of taxation now laid upon real estate and tangible property from ten to twelve per cent...I want to state the reasons why I prefer the general amendment to the limited amendment. Our system of taxation is more unequal and unjust than that of any other state in the Union. Practically the whole burden of taxation is placed upon real estate and tangible property. With one exception all the wealth of the state represented by investments

escapes taxation, and that class is the one class least able to bear the burden of taxation, namely, savings-bank deposits."

An Interesting Meeting

ANOTHER very timely meeting was

held by the New Hampshire Civic Association on February 28th in Concord to discuss the proposed constitutional amendment. Prof. Rice of Dartmouth, Hon. Raymond B. Stevens, G. M. Putnam, President of the New Hampshire Farm Bureau, were the principal speakers. The discussion which followed was extremely animated. Mr. Stevens, Henry H. Metcalf of Concord, John H. Foster, the State Forester, and Alfred T. Pierce supported the amendment while Ex-Gov. Felker, Walter B. Farmer, and Clarence E. Carr took the opposition.

Mr. George H. Duncan considerably cleared the atmosphere of legal technicalities and learned discussion by declaring that it was no use at this time to discuss whether or not one approved or did not approve of the wording of this amendment, that the amendment could not now be changed, and that the question before the people was whether or not they would accept this amendment and relieve the heavy burden of taxation which falls on tangible property or whether they would refuse to pass it and permit this condition so harmful and unjust to continue for the next five or more years.

Other Bills of Interest

EIGHT years ago Manchester lost 135

babies, for every thousand born, today only 95 die in every thousand.

This remarkable lowering of Manchester's infant mortality came about as a result of the municipal maternity work which has been carried on in that city for the last eight years. And there is now before the legislature a bill which if passed will enable this work, so successful in Manchester,

to be extended throughout the state. The bill calls for an appropriation of nearly $8,000 and provides for cooperation with the Federal Government under the Sheppard Towner Act. Such co-operation would mean that maternity work would be conducted through our State Board of Health under Federal supervision and that we would receive from the Federal government a sum of over $12,000 making a total of over $20,000, the minimum amount, according to the proponents of the bill necessary if this work is to be carried on throughout the state.

This bill has been endorsed by the New Hampshire Federation of Woman's Clubs, the N. H. Women's Christian Temperance Union, the State ParentTeachers Association, and is being supported and advocated by the three women legislators at Concord. There has, nevertheless, arisen considerable opposition to the bill, the chief objection being that by thus accepting Federal assistance we surrender our state rights. The supporters of this bill, however, point to the fact that 42 other states have accepted this Federal assistance and that since we already accept Federal aid for nine other purposes, such as for our highways, for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, for the gypsy moth work, etc., they see no reason why we should not accept such Federal aid for the work of saving our babies.

There are three other bills which are receiving much interest, and over which there has been a great deal of controversy and differences of opinion. These include a bill which will permit amateur and uncommercial sports to be played on Sunday; a bill which provides that vaccination for school children shall not be compulsory and a bill which has been introduced by the railroad which calls for the discontinuance of two branch lines of the B. & M. Railroad, the Manchester & Milford Road and the Suncook Valley Road.