Bloomington herald. [volume] (Bloomington, I. T. [Iowa]) 1840-1849, 1846-12-04
TAX QUESTION.

Tue PUBIC JSuSo'
We are at loss to see how "Chips" has over
looked the benefits this town, as well as every other
in the State, would have derived had taxes been such
as to have discouraged the investment Of capital III
agricultural land. The land now held By specula-
tors would, undoubtedly, have been possessed by
good farmers snd as every town is dependent entire
" upon the country for support and consequent
growth, i. is but fair and reasonable 10 say that
Bloomington. would, at this time, have been twice
as large as it is under existing circumstances Can
not Chips see this! TO illustrate-if 100000
acres of land under cultivation will rise its market
town ono thousand inhabitants, viii! not 100000
acres cultivated build up town Of two thousand in
inhabitants! If so, what becomes Of Chips ar
gument, " that We have more property among US IN
consequence Of non-residents." On the other hand
it is perfectly clear that noa-residenss always inter-
fere ayiA the gro,vth Of toacns as aceN as the aojc-
cent country for the prosperity Of the country sMe
ero,cih of tie tom. Is this not perfectly certain
Under this view of the casc-aml that it is true we
are very confident-it is plain that every resident
owner of property in Bloomington would have been
very greatly benefited by the increase of value in
his propcrty--every of a single lot would have
gained one hundred per cent, or more, TO say both
ing of the general advantage TO be derived to the
people, in schools and other of progress Incl
dent to well settled and densely populated country.
| Again" Chips forgets that had non-resdents
never purchased the farming lands of the country,
they would now be settled by hardy and p1oduc-
tive class of citizens He proves too much when ne
undertakes to say that had these men not DO ught
these lands Congress would have still held them and
thecf re we could no. have had the privilege Of tax
ing them at all. Has Chips" any idea that the
lands would have lain vacant at this time Surely
not. Then his position falls TO the ground. We
are sorry that question plain to common minds
should puzzle " Chips" Surely nothing can be
clearer than if ,ce 10y lot Of land lying along side
of :. Chips farm (supposing he had one) that his
labor increases the value of one lot, for which
pay him no equivalent-this is manifestly unjust
Cant Chips" see it! We happy to find
Chips" so clear sighted on the great question of
title to property. Occupancy for use is the true
ground, and we are abundantly pleased to see this
doctrine advanced by Chips Government has
no justification in its policy of selling land for more
than the quit claim of the Indians, and surveying
COST and the lands should never tie sold to specula-
tors under any circumstances. We can add no more
this week. The difference between Chips" and
os,sss!x es is smnlv . daarcncc Of what enunlta IS
For The Herald.
GsNTLEMEN-Taking the advantage Of the
freedom Of your paper for the free discussion
Of all subjects Of public interest, boldly en-.
enlist and enter the field a an humble private,
10 take part in the contest with s'the land and
tax system" sTaxa,ion and non. residen,
land holders.'' Allow me to en.ille the sub.
ject taxation and equcl rights.
FRS, let me say. live by Chips in Bloom.
ing.on. am no &C .plous hmaa," work for
living and pay taxes. pay taxes for coun.
ty purposes, for State, for corporation. for
school, Cor ought to) for poor and for roads,
also have to work two days on the road, and
am liable to do military duty, withou. COM
! pensa,ion. These two last, personal demands,
/ objec, to. believe it TO be equally unjust
to demand military service, OF labor on the
road. without ample compensation. as it would
be to demand legislative or judicial service
wiiiou, compensation. do protest against
man paying tax because he has talent for
working on the road or military talent, any
1 more than he who has talent for tho law,
medicine, divinity, mechanics, judiciary, gam
bling or Legislation. l protest agains, any of
those faculties being taxed. This leads me to
equa! rights-eqnal taxation on all kinds of
property Tor all the public uses for which the
government has provided.
IN lis town, there is scarcely one fourth of
the around occupied, by buildings or by en-
closure. A pcri;on Of the unoccupled lots,
saw one half, are owed by non.residenis.
portion OF the town was oGnGht OF the general
government, by the county, and Wias men sold
to build the court house and Jail. Now II Gon.
residents had no,sbeen permitted to buy, the
residents must have bought them or the court
house conld not have been built The resi-.
dents saved portion Of their means and boill
their own houses; and the Eon.residen,s assist.
ed TO build the court hose. Thus the iowa
was garealy assisted and improved by non.
residents.
| think this argument is sufficient 10 show
that we have more property among US in cen.
sequence Of non.residcnis; and that if we wish
to raise specific sum to make our roads and
Streets, to school our children, or to support
our public to keep our rogues from devonripg
each other, the burthen of taxation is much
lighter upon US who receive these great bene-
fits, by being permitted 70 levy an equal tao on
our o,on property and on Ahat Of those ,uho mar.
take not Of these benefits
| Now the question at issue is--shall we lew
a higher tax upon land in consequence of its
| being owned by non.residents, than upon 9th.
er property. Let US 60 out Of town and exam.
| inc the g Ploughmans" interest. here find
a more difficult, task TO get along with nv