Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-04-27

TUESDAY mORNlNG, APRIL ~, 1855
THE TAN ON STATE CREDIT.
"One Of the Legislature of 1856" again e1presse
his dissatisfaction with our manner of discussing th
vital question. We can only reply that we discove
in his contradictions 40 enlightenment either on maj
| ters Of fact or on issues Of judgment. We still re
gard our former positions undenisble. The tax
| State bonds keeps the State credit below par. Thi
blocks the wheels of Internal Improvement. Anti
| Improvement men are known to be the originator
and principal supporters of the scheme. The tax
laid in an indirect manner, involving unnecessary eI
pense, and which s also well calculated to conces
from superficial observation the real effect Of the ta
tax ITSELF II is enacted by successive Legislatures
each counting majority of Improvement men.
With these facts before US, il is impossible TO avoic
the conclusion that the tax has been knowingly EN-
poyed by anti.improvement men, for the indirec
accomplishment of III object which they could moi
effect by direct means-the obstruction OF State as
sistance to public works.
But 1855" I've beg his pardon for this abridgmeni
of his nom de plume; the whole title is too long for
frequent repetition attempts to dispute our premises
He denies that the Tax on State credit has in the least
degree affected the price of State stock That s other
things being equal stock which yields but GU per
cent ought to sell for thSssme price in the Richmond
market a. stock which yields nett interest of sx
per cent; and that change from 60 to six per
cent, at home would only cause temporary advance
In the price of stocks Will this do to tell even to
the msrinesl
1855" also denies that this tax was imposed main
a.
We are obliged to resort to direct contradiction. We
happen to know that the direction of financial mat
ters from 1852 till 1856, including both years, was
principally employed by conspicuous leaders Of the
anti.improvement party.
But Why do we insist especially on the course OF
the financial managers of 1867 TO this question, we
have already replied. The fact that the tax was first
imposed by previous Legislature, by no means eI.
culpates them from responsibility and they had
greater opportunities to judge Of the practical effect
Of the tax than their predecessors could possibly
have obtained. Moreover, the case of 1856 is the
nearest example, in point of date and the motives
and personnel which were brought to bear at that
time are more distinctly remembered by ourselves
and our readers, than tue even,s OF previous
sions. And NE are not alone in our convictions on
this subject. number of the abest men of this
Commonwealth agree with us in the conclusion, that
the continuance of this scheme Of taxation by the
Legislature Of 1885, was the result Of cold calcua.
ton on the part Of few anti.improvemsnt leaders,
which calculation was strdiousy qoncsaied and 81.
lsny reseryed from tine test of general discussion
But We are called upon to express an opinion on
the action Of the Legislature Of 1853. We are Ger.
tsinly not averse to review Of this feature in the
history of the measure AS nearly as We can remem.
Der, the facts OF the case are theses The Governor
urgently recommended TO the General Assembly, at
the opening of the Arst session. the entire exemption
Of State bonds from taxation. This recommended
ton wss of ITSELF sufficient to array in favor Of the
,a1 email squad of Legislators, who came to Rich.
mond with envenomsd personal enmties against the
present Governor, and with the fixed determination
that no great measure of public improvement should
be permitted IL adOrn the administration of Henry
A. Wise. Whether this was one Of the causes which
DELAYED the consideration Of tleta4 bill until the last
days of te extra session, we will not attempt to de-
eide Certain It is however, that the tax bill was
thus delayed. Shortly before the final adjournment
bill passed the Senate. exempting State bonds from
corporation and county taxation. We are we'll in
formed, that had this bill become law, similar
exemption from State taxation would probably have
been inserted IA geaeral ax.niil. We have the po
stye assurance that such an effort would have bser
made by many Senators. The Senate bill met with
an adverse fate in the House of Delegates. Except
through the recommendation il the Governors meg
sage of December previous, and few articles
which appeared In the enquirer mot during
"four months" as 1856 incorrectly states-bu
10 the cogrse Of q few weeks previous except BY
means OF one official communication aud few
Newspaper articles tho matter had not become the
stbIect of public discussion When it did come
up for consideration in the House, on the merits Of the
Senate BILL everything like thorough discussion wal
stiAed by call for the previous question, made al
the instance OF an anti Improvement man. And
when It was thus hurried to vote, no quorum was
found to pronounce final decision either way.
Had the question been broughtto the consideration
of full House, aud subjected TO full and thorough
discussion we have no doubt whatever that the State
credit would have been Immediately relieved from
the entire burden both of State and corporation taxa
,ion The friends Of internal improvement were not
sufficiently alive to their own interest. They should
have waited and watched for the very first opportu
nifty, and should have employed it promptly, without
waiting for the datory movements of portion of the
finance committee. But they mad no efficient organ
zation, and many Of them were even uniformed OF
the merits of the question. On the other hand large
number of the antiimprovement minority were
thoroughly drilled and organized They seized every
opportunity of advantage Mainly by their Efforts the
consideration of the question was delayed and finally
Inverted We trust ths. this exposition will satisfy
the Jealous requirements Of 1885, at least it suf
cienly indicates the party which now upholds the tai
on State bonds; and this of ITSELF ought to furnish
asucent warning to the friends of internal improve
ment.
lS56" is not content to conAne his remarks to the
vndicaton of certain of his former colleagues. He
attempts to vndicste his own vote in favor OF the
tax on State credit. We have already sufficiently
noticed his principal point Of defence His next po
sition ia that he s unwilling to discriminate between
public and private credit. He considers it unjust to
do so 1856" may be little startled at The announce
meut but It is nevertheless true. that by voting for
the tax bill Of 1885, he has roted 10 discriminate he.
t,ceen puLlic AVID private credit. lie has voted to
tax bis own credit at q lower figure than that i'm
oHNN'
Interpretation of the assessment law OF 1893, cons
dered with reference to all the tax acts, public credit
is taxed absolutely while the mere surplus of private
funds and private credit over private Indebtedness
ia made the subject of taxation. To illustrate this:
one man holds State bond for 800, and owes money
to the amount Of 81 900; he pays tax oil ~ cents
no deduction being made By reason OF his indebted
ness Another man holds the private bond OF 1856
for $780, and is indebted to others to the same amount
be pays no taI whatever. This STATE Oh .n'hgs
was in operation in 1885, and was confirmed
and continued by the Legislature of that year. The
plea of aversion to determination" comes with
very bad grace from the legislator OF 1890.
1855" is also opposed to sacrificing source OF
revenue. Does be know what the source OF revenue
in question s actually worth to the State of virginia.
An examination OF the Auditors report shows nat II
ann IL