Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1871-10-31

CITY of Richmond.

City of Richmond.
1t is no uncommon thing to hear merchants
say, I'VE believe we can do quite as well by ma
king our ENTHUSIASTICALLY of groceries
in Richmond as any where else, but we have
gotten into the habit of going to Baltimore to
buy and hence we continue to lay in our sup
plies there" This is grave mistake. Throw
ing out of view all feelings of State pride IN
the prosperity of our own metropolis, which is
'bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, our
people should recolect that they have sub
stantial pecunary interest in advancing the
prosperity of Richmond. Every dollar added
to the value of property in Richmond tends to
diminish the burthen of taxation on ourselves.
The real property of Richmond is now assessed
at about twenty-five millions of dollars. Now
suppose that by increasing the volume of trade
in Richmond, and adding to its general BUSH
ness we could double the value of her real es
tate, it is evident we thereby double the value
of its taxable property, and by distributing the
burthen of taxation over a larger surface we
proportionably lessen the weight of taxation
on ourselves.
Supposing the real estate of Richmond to
be doubled in value, by the concentration OF
our trade there, at the present rate of taxa
ton, there would be an increase of the State
revenue, from that city, of SIP, 500. This
would tend to relieve the residue of the State
from that amount Of taxation, and would cause
a sensible dimunition of the weight Of our own
burthens. On looking at it in its relations to oul
public debt, the addition above suggested, to
the value of Richmond property, would be
equivalent to wiping out near two millions OF
dollars, because it would afford the means oil
paying the interest on near that amount
But this is not all. The revenue from per-
sonal property, licenses, incomes, and capita
ton taxes, would be correspondingly increased
and probably make the additional State reve-
nue. 5000 900, which would pay the interest on
three and third millions of our debt.
We hope our people will bear these striking
facts in mind. State pride-local patriotism
and strong personal interests concur in prompt
ing us to build up our own beautiful Richmond.
We venture to say that Baltimore pays al
most half Of the revenues of Maryland. And
what striking instance of the tax paying ca
pacities of cities is furnished by poor afflicted
Chicago. 1t appears from statements pub
lished since the terrible confagration in that
city, that the real estate in that city alone was
assessed at 273 millions of dollars We can
form some estimate of the immensely of this
aggregate, when we repeat that the whole real
estate of the State of Virginia, including all
her cities and towns, is assessed at only 279
millions of dollars, or but six millions more
than the real estate of Chicago
IF, then, we could make Richmond equal to
Chicago land when our Railroads are compile
ted and she is brought Into direct relations
with the trade of the West, why should she
not rival Chicago in wealth AID spendor y ii
is obvious that from her real estate alone, we
would draw a revenue as great as that yielded
by all the lands of the commonwealth Our
public debt would then be but bagatelle. We
might provide for the interest-set apart a
sinking fund for the annual reduction, and yet
be able to diminish our taxes one-half.
This is certainly a pleasing prospect. And
though We may not be able to accomplish it in
full, we certainly can do SO in part, and we
earnestly recommend our citizens to do what
they can to build up Richmond.
The same train of reasoning applies to build
ing up Staunton. Every addition to the value
of property In Stanton tends to lessen the
amount of taxes to be levied on the people oil
the country. Let the country people then see
that it is their interest to tighten their own
burdens BY building up their county town.