The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1856-01-16

power ior iaFOTlu8 OF QlScouraglng spc-
cial interests or objects. This was SO
long and so generally acquiesced in, that
the idea became prevalent that taxes
are levied, not SO much for the purposes
of revenue, as for those of favoriteism
or oppression. Hence, we find persons
denouneing taxes, although imposed by
general laws, as being aimed at the de-
strustion of their particular class; and,
hence, it likewise is, that we find them
demanding exemptions for certain spe-
cial objects, because, in their opinion,
they dese7..a to succeed.
These appeals ID the favor of our
Legislatures have in many distances
been successful. The valuation of i'm
proved lands in q state of nature, which
was the rule previous to 1876, was in
tended as a favor to the agricultural in
terest. The exemption of tools and
machinery was designed as an encour-
agement to the mechanics and manufac-
turers of the State. Taxing banks on
their profits only was held out as a bo-
nus for foreign capital; while the ex-
emption of property appropriated to ed
ucational and charitable purposes, was
intended as an approval of those objects.
Under this polocy the duplicate decrcas-
ed until it embraced OILY about one
fourth of the actual wealth of the State.
Attempting to favor every deserving
object in society multiplied the pleas
for further exemptions, and there was
danger hat the true idea of taxation
would be..entirely lost. As anatural con-
sequence, various special taxes were i'm
posed, which, however, produced but
little revenue.
In ls46 a change in our financial sys-
tenn occurred. Annual deficits CON-
PEELED the Legislature to return to what
should be the primary object of all the
tax laws, to wit the collection of rev.
enue. Previous errors were her in
part remedied, but many lagrant ones
were continued from ill-advised partial
ity. A new tendency, was, however,
inaugurated and the rule of equality
in taxation gained constant strength, in
spite of opposing interests. The Consti-
tutional Convention met under these
auspices, and the tax rule established
in the Constitution was the result. It's
great principle is the abrogation of all
arbitrary taxation. Man, as such, his
business, occupation, and profession, are
no longer subject to legislative caprice.
Property is the measure and basis of
taxation. A few exemptions for objects
of almost universal interest are author
lied, but in such a manner that they
can never become independent of. the
popular will.
The first General Assembly under the
new Constitution passed such tax laws
as were supposed to be in accordance
with the requirements. Differences of
construction arose, as was to be expect
ed, and were very properly referred to
the Courts, whose decision has been ac-
guessed in by the great body of the
people.
1t was not denied that the rule refer
red to has produced occasionally some
hardships, but it is equally true that
these hardships would be scarcely OBJ
servable, if, instead of supporting ex-
emptions, and deductions, we would
make the grand duplicate represent the
entire wealth of the State. 1t is esti-
mated that no less than three hundred
millions of property escaped taxation.
A careful examination of the question
will suggest many reasons adverse to
any precipitate or %unadvised changes in
our tax laws. All agree that property
shall be taxed where it is by a uniform
rule, that the resident and nonresident
ew.er shall pay his due proportion, and
that his proportion shall include State,
county, township and city taxes. The
tax is on the property within the State,
cod nof IN ffa in1,o h1En,t, Ill., t..
for the tax is not upon the owner, but
on the property. 1t makes no differ
ence whether the property is owned by
residents or non-residents. Possession,
and not ownership, is the point of inqui-
ry. A New York merchant doing bust
ness in our State will not be asked
whether his capital is his own or bor-
rowed.. The whole stock found in his
pos session is the measure of his taxa
ton. Our own merchants are treated
in precisely the SANE way. A differ
ent rule would obviously work serious
injustice to Ohio merchants, because,
with deductions for credits, foreign ner.
chants might trade in our State without
paying one dollar of taxes. Again, Vir-
ginians own land in Ohio. They owe a
portion of the purchase money either 10
one or the other of these States. Shall
the township or city in which the land
lies lose the right to levy a fair proper
ton of taxes upon the lands in question?
The rule for deduction for debts would
evidently work endless confusion. Take
the case of one of our own citizens,
many of whom own real and personal
property in more than one locality, and
are indebted for part of the same:-
where shall the deduction be made p
Shall it be made at their own option !?
The doctrine so frequently advanced
that g man should be taxed only on what
he has and cot upon what he has not, !"
does not in fact apply to our system of
taxation. Our duplicate lists the visi-
Bile property in the State, and net the
persons. A large number of the inhab-
itants of the State are not upon it, while
it contains the names of many who re-
side beyond its limits. This is a suffi-
cient answer to such avowals.
Simplicity, both of detail and princi-
pie, is an important element in the con
struction of all revenue laws. EMISSIONS
multiply with exemptions and deduc-
tions, and the individual tax payer will
be apt, through mental reservation, to
enlarge the sphere for which the legis-
lator has set him the example. He. too,
has favorite objects which he thinks it
hard to tax. The more generally we
adopt the principle of taxing equally all
property, the more equitable and fair
will be its effects. Their unequal ope-
ration, rather than their amount, makes