Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-12-07

Mr.. Crews, in an able speech, supported
the bill, and appealed to the house to re-
peal the unjust and oppressive tax now
levied on one of the most important in
terests of the State
Mr.. Spears opposed the bill, on tie
ground that the tax was indirectly paid
bV the consumers, and not by the mer-
chants; that the law as it now stands was
enacted at the suggestion of merchants,
and was approved at a convention of the
merchants OF the State, before Its passage.
Mr.. 0dom followed In opposition 10 the
bill.
Mr.. Crews, in reply to Spears, showed
that ths tax Wss oppressive 70 merchants.
Il was not only paid by those who wore
fine clothes but BY eveTybo who had to
bay necess sriss Of life He did not pro-
pose TO exempt merchants from taxation,
be only desired to hsve the tax levied in
more equal manner.
Mr.. Snipes said he would support the
bill II he were guided by his private inter-
ests and say pile the taxes on merchants,
but duty impelled him to oppose q tax
which was unjust, and did not sec why
8 man who invested $1,000 in merchandise
should pay q tax double that imposed on
man who invests an equal amount in
q farm.
Mr.. ssmsel approved Of relieving mer-
chants of taxes on money invested in
Tennessee manufactures, but he could
not support the bill before the house.
Mr.. Lynn, of Lsuderdsle, argued that
the tax wss unconstitutional.
Mr. Freemsn opposed the privilege tax
because he believed it oppressed the poor
consumers, who were unable TO buy out
side the Stste, while persons of larger
mssns could thereby escape the tax. The
proper principle was 70 tax property, and
not occupation.
\ II. -.
trade from the State He did not
see how the house could refuse to pass the
bill before them.
Mr.. Tillmsn would not support the bill,
but was In favor of reducing the privilege
tax to one half the ad vslOrem tax on
merchants. That was as far as he could
60 at this time. He offered an amendment
embcdying this suggestion.
Mr.. Crews said this was better than
nothing. He would therefore accept the
amendment.
Mr.. Gordon ssid the sd vslorem tax bill
had settled this question, snd he would
oppose ths measure before the house.
Mr.. Msgin said be was a country mer-
chant, and he gave his experience. This
tax, said he, had forced him to buy his
goods in New York, In this wsy: II he
bought his goods in Knoxville Of whole
ssle merchants, who were taxed st the
rate Of one dollar and twenty cents on
every one hundred dollars worth of
goods, he wss obliged TO add it to the bill;
then when the goods were shipped to his
country store there was another tax on
the country merchant, and 10 avoid this
double tax he purchased his goods outside
Of the State. After some discussion, the
bill was adopted by vote Of forty five to
tWenty-three.
Mr.. Lumpkin's insurance bill was ta-
ken up. On motion 10 reconsider the
vote adopting 1t, he offered bill in lieu
thereof fixing tsL OF two per cent. on
first premiums on policies issued to par
ties in this State. After soms discussion
both the bill In lieu and the original bill
were rejected By q vote Of thirty-fve to
thirty. ~
Mr.. ChesthSm introduced bill suthor-
iziDg the governor to issue bonds to the
amount of one and q half million dollars
In anticipation OF an adverse decision by
the supreme court respecting the new is
sues of tbs Bank Of Tennessee.
The house held an evening session, and
of a large namber of bills on
their second reading,