PROCEEDINGS OF THIRTY-SIXTH FRUIT-GROWERS 3 CONVENTION. 



109 



supported by every principle of equity, and therefore just. Just, not alone to you, 

 but also just to the railroads: just to those who, through promotion literature sent 

 out ( much of which was misleading and extravagant in its claims of profits made 

 in fruit growing, by the railroads, promotion committees, large landowners and real 

 estate dealers), were induced to sell their homes and holdings in the East and come 

 to California and invest their all in growing fruit for Eastern shipment; just to 

 those who. through honest and honorable effort, are trying to promote and build up 

 the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys ; in fact, just to all legitimate interests. 



We believed that the railroad officials did not understand the true condition of 

 our deciduous fruit industry and the imperative demand that relief should and must 

 come to it in order to save a large per cent of its growers from financial ruin. We 

 believed all we would have to do would be to show them facts and figures to convince 

 them that you were asking no more than you were entitled to. 



In the discharge of our duties Ave soon realized that the purpose for which we 

 have been selected was not so easily accomplished as at first it seemed it would be. 

 However, having accepted the positions you so kindly tendered us, we felt that we 

 were in honor bound to do all that our ability would permit us to do, to gain for you 

 the relief necessary to place your interests upon a small paying basis. In the 

 discharge of our duties we have spared neither labor nor expense. We have acted 

 strictly from a conscientious standpoint. 



In presenting your claims we have not indulged in the use of abusive language 

 nor language that any gentleman could take exception to, but, on the contrary, have 

 been more supplicative than otherwise. Neither have we dealt in generalities alone 

 but. on the contrary, we have presented eighty-seven different railroad officials with 

 data containing facts and figures in support of your contention, none of which, up 

 to this time, have been proved to be incorrect. 



I presume there are some present here from Los Angeles. The next question 

 considered, then, will be of interest to the Los Angeles people, because it relates to 

 the question of taxation — one, in fact, that we all feel interested in. We all feel that 

 we are overtaxed, taxed more than we should be, to defray the expense of govern- 

 ment : therefore, to those people of Los Angeles I wish to call attention to the fact 

 that they are paying also heavy taxes, yet not in proportion to the deciduous fruit 

 growers of the San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys. 



TAXATION. 



You have just gone through the ordeal of paying your first installment of state 

 and county taxes, and no doubt many of you, if not all of you, feel that the rate of 

 taxation for the support of the government is unnecessarily high and oppressive. 

 That such is the feeling of the fruit growers of Placer County is evidenced by the 

 speeches and the action taken by the growers at a meeting held at Loomis on Sep- 

 tember 19th la.st. at which Judge X. 1*. Chipman took a strong stand against the 

 tax levied on fruit trees and vines. 



Judge Chipman said, in part, "There is no greater iniquity than that tax. There 

 never has been a more unjustified piece of legislation. Nothing can justify a tax 

 on growing fruit trees, and by concerted action you should be able to accomplish 

 much towards overcoming its evils." 



I agree with Judge Chipman. The tax on fruit trees and vines is an evil which 

 should be remedied at the earliest possible moment. There are many trees and vines 

 that bring no profit to their owners; instead, the care and handling of their products 

 brings a loss. 



I believe the delegates in this convention should pass a resolution tendering 

 Judge Chipman a vote of thanks for the firm stand he had taken upon this question. 

 The" only fault I have to find with Judge Chipman is that he does not go far enough 

 on the question of taxation. 



The deciduous fruit growers, whose products are shipped East to find a market, 

 stand in a class by themselves as taxpayers, when the question of indirect as well 

 as direct taxation is considered. 



There is another tax — you may call it by whatever other name you please, and 

 it will still remain a tax in character and in fact — which the fruit growers have to 

 pay. that is far more oppressive and excessive in its demands than the one mentioned 

 by' Judge Chipman. This tax is levied by a self-constituted authority, which 

 arrogates to itself the right to levy tribute, without consulting with or asking the 

 consent of those who have to bear its burden, and there seems to be no influence or 

 power sufficiently potent to restrict it in its demands. This tax, for it is nothing 

 more nor less than such, is assessed against the deciduous fruit growers' products 

 in the way of charges for transportation on their Eastern shipments. 



I doubt if any one here ever gave this question serious consideration or realized 

 the magnitude of this tax, which is being imposed upon the fruit growers of Cali- 

 fornia, and which is particularly oppressive to the deciduous growers of the Sacra- 

 mento and San Joaquin valleys. 



In order to illustrate how this tax affects the deciduous fruit growers when 



