Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1856-01-23


tions for certain special objects, because,
in their opinion, they deserve to succeed.
These appeals to the favor of our Leg
islatures have in many instances been
successful. The valuation of improved
lands in state of nature, which was the
rule previous to 1876, was intended as
favor to the agricultural interests. The
exemption of tools and machinery was
designed as I'll encouragement to the
mechanics and manufacturers of the
State Taxing banks on their profits only
was held out as bonus for foreign cap
it'll while the exemption of property
appropriated 10 educational and charit-
able purposes, was intended as an ap-
proval of those objects. Under this
policy the duplicate decreased until it
embraced only about one-fourlh of the
actual wealth Of the State. Attempting
to favor every deserving Object in society
multiplied The pleas for further exemp-
tons, and there was danger that the tru-
idea of taxation would be entirely lost.
As natural consequence, various
special taxes We're imposed, which, how
ever. produced but little revenue.
In l546 change of our financial sys-
TEN occurred. Annual deficits compelled
the Legislature to return TO what shoul
oe the primary object of all tax laws, t.
wit: the collection of revenue. Preyi-
Gus errors were then in part remedied,
but many fragrant ones were continued
from iil-advised pariiality. A new ten
lency was, however, inaugurated and
The rule of equality in taxation gained
constant strength, in spite Of opposing in
lercs;s. The Constitutional Convention
met under these auspices, and the tax
rule established in the Constitution was
the result. Its great principle is The alb
rDgation of all arpitary taxation. Man
as such, his business, occupation and pro-
iession, are no longer subject to legisA-
tive caprice. Property is the measure
and basis OF taxation. A few exemptions
for objects of almost universal interest
ire authorized, but in such manner thai
they can never become independent OF
the popular will.
The first Gereral assembly under the
new Cons,itstion pa ssed such tax laws as
were supposed 10 be IN accordance with
its requirements. Differences of con
SIruclion arose, as was TO be expected,
and were very properly referred 10 the
Courts, whose decision has been acquies
ced in by the great body of the people.
II =, No, ,niad thaf tho -,,lo ocs..oJ b.
has produced occasionally some hard
ships, but it is equally lrue that these
hardships would be scarcely observable
if, instead of supporting exemptions and
deductions, we would make the grand
q Iplicate represent the entire wealth of
the State. 1t is estimated that 10 less
than three hundred millions of property
in the Stale escaped lax Ilion.
A careful examination of the question
will suggest changes in our tax laws
All agree that properly sh+ll be taxed
where it is b. an uniform rule, that the
resident and non resident owner shall pIN
his due proportion, AMI that this proper
ton shall include State, county, township
and city taxes. The tax is ON the prop
erty within the State, and not on lis in
habiianis. The lien for The lax is not up
on the owner, but upon the property. 1t
makes no difference whether The property
is owned by residents or non-residents.
Possessions, and not ownership, is the
point of inquiry. A New York mer-
chant doing business in our State will not
be asked whether his capital is his own
or borrowed. The whole stock found H.
his possession is the measure of his tax
alton. Oar own merchants are treat, d
precisely in the same way. A different
rule would obviously work serious il jus.
tice 10 Ohio merchants, because, with de-
ductions for credits, foreign merchants
might trade in our State without paving
,ne dollIr Of taxes. Again, Virginians
own lands in Ohio. They owe portion
OF the purchase money either in one O.
the other of these States. Shall the town
ship or city in which the land lies lose
The right to levy fair proportion of tax
eS upon The lands in question: The rule
for deduction fIr debts would evidently
work endless confusion. Take the cas,-
oi one of our own citizens, many OF
whom own both real and personal prop
eriy in more than one locality, and are
indebted fur part of the same whert
shall the deduction be made? Shall it be
at their own option2
The doctrine so frequently advanced
that "man should be taxed only on what
he has and not upon what he has not
does not in fact apply TO our system of
taxation. Our duplicate lists, the visible
property of the State and not the persons
A large number of the inhabitants of the
State are not upon it, while it contains
The names OF many who reside beyond its
limits. This is a sufficient answer 10
such avowals.
Simplicity, both of detail and principle,
is an important element in the Cousiruc-
ton of all revenue laws. EvaSions mul-
tply with exemptions and deductions, and
Ihe individual tax payer will be apt
through mental reservation, to enlarge
the sphere for which The legislator has sei
him the example. He, too, has favorii'
objects which he thinks it hard TO tax
the more generally we adopt the princi
pie of taxing equally all property, the
more equitable and fair will be its effects.
Their unequal operation, rather lhln their
amount, makes taxes oppressive. L.
our State, tax inequalities are necessarily
unjust. Every dollar that is remitted 10,
or withheld by, one person, must be made
up and paid by others. The amount of
taxes is not reduced by suffering property
10 escape ; the only result is that th+
taxes are unjustly levied. Exemptions
and deductions but mar the uniformity
and equality cf our tax laws, a ndfor this
reasln, if for no other, there should be as
few allowed as possible.
An equal tax on property based on
these rules, with few exemptions and dc.