New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-03-09

| ASSESSOR WEBSTER And WALL-SE hG.4TN
! Tie ibioA,- in its efforts to ndicule Mr.
/ Assessor Webster, on account Of his contest
with the bulls and bears Of Wall-st, should be
careful not 10 make itself ridiculous. il is
very cheap criticism for that journal in its
pretontious, 81 am Sir Ornclep style, to ask,
I" Are debts capital in Wail-stfn and 10 de-
nounoe the Assessor as "a jack-in-otlicc" Let
us SEQ II there arc not the ear-marks Of some
Kind Of jack i'll The Albion Office. With sin
gular inexactness Of statement, that journal as
serts that Assessor Webster's new construction of
tho Internal Revenue Law involves ajax which
''would be equivalent TO thirteen per cent per
" anpum, supposing the same capital 20 be
{" loaned every secular day. This Is sheer
nonsense, and shows that the writer does not
well understand tho subject which he attempts
to discuss. Mr. Webster does not, aud never
did, propose any such thing bat does propose
that the bankers doing business I'm tho XXXIId
District shall comply with tho law by paying
exactly one twenty fourth OF one per cent per
month, or onc-half of one per cent per annum
on the capital employed by any. person in the
business of banking" In the case supposed
tho Assessor would assess tax of one-half Of
one per cent per annum-neither more nor
less--lividing the assessment equally among
the three hundred and odd gentlemen who had
used or employed" tho capital in question.
If The Albion man can do q littlo sam in frac-
tiOns, he may be able to discover tho amount
of tax, at the rate tof ono-half per cent per
annuun, on given principal for n single day.
The Asse ssOr's critic says: 1--WE are not
among those who wish to SEQ Wall-st. re-
''lieved Of any of tho taxes imposed upon its
business by existing acta, Tor it IL cc.dautly
liable TO pay them.p In this view we entirely
| coincide; but the critic, when he says, furs
| ther along in the article, "If the law contem-
plated including loans in capital it shOuld
be promptly modified by excepting loans and
deposits both being equally representatives
of indebtedness; and il loans are to. be
taxed, there Is no reason why deposits should
mot be taxed Also" leaves in the unregen-
crate mind u doubt as TO his absolute sincerity,
or at least a pulling question as to which of
these wishes is the genuine Original Jacobs"
The Albion does not seem to be aware that
deposits have been taxed one twonty-fourth of
one per cent per month, the same as capital
used in banking, for tho past four or five
years and that the banks and bankers have
heretofore paid the tax without very much
grumbling. This tax was no doubt levied by
Congress on the theory that even though
deposits arc representatives of indebtedness"
it ia stlll Of great pecuniaiy advantage to n
bank to have large line of deposits. SO the
use of capital or money in banking is gen
orally believed to be a profitable use Of ii,
and for that reason it is taxed, not GENEROUSLY.
but very lightly. From the language of the
law which levies the tax on the capital en-
"plOved by any person in tho business of
q banking it would seem clear enough to the
ordinary mind that it was the intention of
Congress to tax all the capital so employed,
without any reference to the unimpOrtant
question as TO whether 1t may DO borrowed or