provement of farms, utilization of water power, construction and operation of more factories would relieve the labor situation by creating an extra demand and by reducing at the same time the number of hired laborers.

The workingman was promised not only increased employment and higher money wages but a material reduction in the cost of living. With regard to this point argument on both sides was confusing and betrays an imperfect understanding of the laws of incidence. Single-taxers indeed asserted the claim (essentially sound) that exemption of manufacturers, if general enough, would reduce the price of finished articles, but they failed to make clear that taxes transferred from factories to land

would not again be thrown back on the consumer. In fact some single-taxers assumed that the present tax on land value is shifted,' and the easy inference was that an exclusive tax on land would be shifted by the same process. Precisely this stand was taken by critics of single-tax doctrine, who maintained that the increased tax on land would "reappear in rents and in the costs of doing business, which, in large degree, must still be paid by labor through prices charged to consumers." This position with regard to the incidence of a land tax will be recognized as unsound by students of public finance, but, so far as the writer knows, no correction was made by followers of Henry George.

A vigorous effort was made by single-taxers to convert the farming class, without whose support no measure could be carried by popular referendum. The amount of capital invested in manufacture represented approximately one-tenth of the entire assessment, and it was not proposed to exempt business blocks except those used for manufacturing purposes. The change of policy would necessitate no considerable increase in the rate of taxation, and farmers with cultivated land would gain more by exemption of improvements than they lost through the increased rate on unimproved value. Even the change to an

1 Oregon Tax Reform Association, in Journal, April 3, 1908.

Oregonian, editorial, January 12, 1908; the same notion that all taxes are shifted underlies the argument of Thos. Sladden, in Oregonian, May 16, 1908.

exclusive land tax would reduce the burdens on farmers, who are vastly over-taxed under the present system. In support of this contention the precise fraction of state and local taxes which farmers would pay under single-tax was calculated and compared with the percentage required by the general property tax. Unfortunately for the single-taxer's cause, these estimates made by several writers differed widely and the sources of information were seldom given.'

To these widely divergent estimates critics merely opposed the crude exaggeration that, under the single-tax, farmers would pay all taxes, or the unsupported assertion that improvements on farms are worth proportionately less than city sky-scrapers and business blocks and that farmers would profit less by proffered exemptions than would owners of improved urban properties. A possible exception was found in the case of stockmen in eastern Oregon whose wealth, consisting so largely of sheep and cattle, would be entirely exempt. Such wealthy graziers, it was contended, should not be favored by disproportionate exemptions."

To test the truth of assertions on either side would be impossible. Lack of uniformity in assessments of several counties, failure to approximate cash value in any county and failure of

assessors to segregate improvements on real estate, baffle any attempt to forecast the effect of single-tax on the owners of urban, as compared with rural, real estate. At any rate farmers generally assumed that the purpose of the movement, if not of the specific measure, was to transfer the burden entirely to land, and that land ownership would involve increased fiscal obligations. The exemption measure and the philosophy back of it were condemned by resolutions in local and state

1 Estimates of the farmer's share under single-tax ranged all the way from onetenth to one-third of the total. See A. D. Cridge, in Oregonian, March 7, 1908, and in Journal, May 20, 1908: quotation from Labor Press copied in Journal, April 11, 1908; statement of Oregon Tax Reform Association, in Journal, April 3, 1908; Fred C. Denton, in Journal, April 11, 1908.

* Journal, editorial, March 1, 1908; T. J. Fording, in Oregonian, May 12, 1908; Geo. A. Thacher, in Oregonian, May 24, 1908; L. A. Hunt, in Oregonian, June 1, 1908; and T. C. Humphrey in Journal, May 18, 1908.

granges. The opposition also found formal expression in resolutions by the East Side Push Club and the Taxpayers' League of Portland. In all of these the feeling was expressed that the measure proposed was an experiment which might prove detrimental, if not disastrous, to the state. Closely allied to this was the opinion, held by those not unfriendly to the new system of direct legislation, that the important task of formulating a state's revenue policy demanded the more deliberate consideration of a legislative body. At any rate the first measure with single-tax tendencies submitted in Oregon was defeated by a vote of 60,871 to 32,066, or nearly two to one. In some localities, however, the returns were such as to suggest to advocates the expediency of making single-tax policy a local, as well as a state-wide, issue.'

II

To clear the ground for such action was the evident aim of the constitutional amendment submitted in 1910. This act contained a prohibition against the poll tax, provided that no measure affecting assessment and taxation should become a law until ratified by the people at a general election, repealed every constitutional limitation on the taxing power when exercised by the people, and empowered the voters of the several counties to regulate taxation and exemption within their respective jurisdictions subject only to such general laws as the people might approve.3 Disregarding the clause affecting the poll tax, which had been abolished by legislative act in 1907, the purpose of this amendment was twofold: first to reduce the power of the legislature over taxation to a mere initiative, and secondly to clear the way for county option in taxation. Although the measure was framed by single-taxers, its connection with the

1 Journal, March 15, 1908.

'The result in Multnomah County was so close that a transfer of 250 votes would have given the measure an actual majority. In Coos County the amendment was carried by a majority of 77. In typical agricultural communities like Benton and Wallowa counties, the vote was five to one against the exemption measure.

'Laws of Oregon 1911, p. 9; Cf. POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, vol. xxvi, p. 288.

movement was at first obscured by the fact that it emanated from labor organizations and received the endorsement of the central labor council of Portland and the state federation of labor. It is true that a vigorous campaign in favor of the amendment was later undertaken by single-tax advocates with the aid of the Fels Fund Commission. The customary indictment of the general property tax was made, high and increasing value of urban real estate referred to, and the evils of land speculation expressed as in the previous campaign; but, with the exception of scattering references here and there, the precise connection between the amendment and the future program of the single-taxer was not disclosed. An appeal for popular support was based mainly on the justice of abolishing the iniquitous poll tax and the necessity of having all tax measures submitted to the people for direct consent.

The county option feature, which was undoubtedly considered important, was not made prominent in the campaign. When this phase of the question was referred to at all, advocates urged the inherent justice of allowing each county to choose for itself suitable sources and methods of taxation.3

In opposing the measure it was urged that compulsory reference of all tax laws was not only useless but would make it impossible for the legislature to frame a unified, consistent revenue policy for the state. The assembly could not control tax measures submitted by initiative, and the endorsement of some bills and the rejection of others would destroy whatever harmony the legislature might introduce. Since the verdict of the people could not be taken before the next general election, the legislature could not, in the interval between consecutive elections, meet an emergency that might arise. +

Critics of the measure also emphasized the evils of local

1 Journal, October 15, 1910.

'W. G. Eggleston, A. D. Cridge and W. S. U'Ren, People's Power and Public Taxation, p. 125.

'Peoples Power and Public Taxation, p. 27; see also summary statement of same argument in Journal, October 15, 1910.

Report of State Tax Commission, 1911, p. 23; cf. also, Gilbert, "Apportionment of State Taxes in Oregon," POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, vol. xxvi, p. 286.

option in taxation, the probable confusion and conflict between laws of adjacent counties. The danger of double taxation would also be enhanced in proportion as the diversity of laws was increased. The evasion of taxes on certain classes of property would be facilitated by a mere change of residence or situs. Without separation of sources, too, the apportionment of state taxes would present insuperable difficulties.'

Some few critics of the measure saw and clearly stated the purpose back of the constitutional changes sought by its advocates. It would prepare the way for submission of measures in selected localities recognized as strongholds of single-tax doctrine. Once single-tax was introduced as a county measure, other localities would be compelled to adopt a similar policy as a means of self-defense, and the system could accordingly be extended throughout the state. It was recognized as a roundabout way of forcing the single-tax on counties irrespective of local preference. Although the defects of the amendment were clearly discerned and its passage was opposed by leading Portland papers, by the state bar association, the state tax commission and other organizations, critics of the measure were not active in exposing its tendencies. On the other hand, vigorous support of the amendment by single-tax adherents, its endorsement by organized labor, coupled with an attractive ballot title, insured its passage by a narrow majority.3 With constitutional obstacles removed, the way was now open for reference of any tax measure the followers of Henry George cared to initiate.

III

By far the most important single-tax campaign in Oregon was waged before the general election of 1912. At that time

1 Journal, October 15 and November 6, 1910. Argument against the amendment also well stated in Report of Tax Commission, 1911, pp. 22-23.

"Geo. W. Dixon, in Oregonian, November 1, 1910; Oregonian, editorial, July 27, 1910, in which the amendment was characterized as "dangerous to the security of property rights."

The vote for the state as a whole was 44,171 in favor, and 42,127 against. In Multnomah county the measure was carried by 2000, while 17 out of 34 counties gave smaller majorities.