Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1872-07-16
So, 4jj at , per ct. sl;t}9


owned out of this clty-wholc amount, $40
92S; foreign, about SGOu,oN
No revenue can be derived from the Market
House, as it goes to the sinking fund. This
amounted to some 1900, and lireuses collect
ed of huckstcrs refunded by Council some
$500, lesSeued last year $ revenue toIthat ex-
tent. The market rents heretofore regarded-as
so much cash must be supplied. We propose
to DO it by taxing the foreign corporation stock.
Our assets without the tax sales and foreign
corporation lax, amounts to $I41, ISL; 1t for
prompt payment We deduct as last year, Upper
Ct. it would reduce our assets SO. lG2 to; If
10 per Ct, sl4,7715. 10; it.5 per CT, s1,5S7 %
Any reduction for prompt payment is lnadml%
sbc, uuwise. aud impolitic If We had ample
taxable property. Prompt payment can as
readily be secured BY adding to the tax bills
per ceutage if notpaid within stipulated tune.
Corporation notes redeemed last year and can
celed, 's 81, 40
Back interest paid Isl to 500 lcSs) +, 800
Less than slU, 900 due-sOme left to pay loss.
When the first reading OF the bill was con-
cluded,
Mr. Portner said that he understood that
this bill had never been presented to the Fl
nance Committee He moved that it be refer
red to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. Hopkins had 10 objection to the refer
cnce if the bill could be speedily acted upon,
but one member Of the committee was out OF
town and an early report could not be looked
for. There need be no stoprage OF the bill be-
cause it did not come from the Finance Com
mittce, for it came from the Board of Al
dermcn. 81. Il q
The motion was not agreed 10.
The second reading was proceeded with.
Mr. Pinn inquired whether this bill was
founded upon the new assessment. < ,
The Chair presumed it was, but had no in
formation on the subject. .........>...
When the license tax on hucksters was
reached, .,
An inquiry was made whether this provision
was not identical with that declared uuconstltu-
tional by the courts last year.
Mr. Hopkins said he had been Informed that
the provisions Of this bill we're different from
that Of the revenue act Of last year. The adverse
decision then was founded upon the special
Tire bill this year had been framed to avoid
the grounds upon which the tax was over-turn-
ed last year. . .-
When the clause concerning gift concerts
came up,
Mr. Shinu moved to amend lapsus penna
in the bill, which made the tax 500 per night
and loo per week, upon which debate occurred,
Mr.. Pun tavoring 5000 per week, Mr.. Hop
kiDs and Mr.. ShIun opposing it. An ameud-
ment making the tax $50 per night and 500
per week, was agreed 10.
When the tax on dogs came up,
Mr.. Pinu said that although 81 was the tax
on dog, yet Sl.25 was charged He wanted
to know how that was.
1t was explained to him that % cts. was the
Auditor fee for recording the tax, made by a
special'law
Mr. Pinn moved to make the tax on dogs
$l25 If that much is paid the Corporation
ought to have the benefit of it.
Mr. Hopkins said that it the tax was made
% cts it would cost all those having dogs 80
cents.
Mr. Evans called attention to the fact that
when this question was up two years ago, an
inquiry as to the right for this charge was
made, and it was then said that this fee was
paid by custom.
Mr. Beach moved to amend by adding to
the tax Of 8 "and twenty Eve cts for medal v
MIR Hughes opposed any change Some 400
dogs had been licensed, aud fees from them
had gone to help to pay the Auditors salary
Take this away and there was no inducement
for the Auditor to look after the dog tax
Mr.. Hopkins thought that the tax, as it
stood, would enable the Council to pay less to
the Auditor BY this tax the Auditor could
look out for his own fees and assist himself.
The tax on malt liquors was struck out on
the motion of Mr.. Rischie aud that on dis
tilleries on the motion of Mr. Portner, these
gentlemen urging that the specific tax on manu-
features was unconstitutional.
Mr.. Shiun, lMr. Rock in the chair opposed
the principle on which the bill was based. 1t
was based on the old idea of taxing industry and
energy-of making men pay for the right to
work at their callings. The tax should be
levied on capital. That was the true basis.
Wait until a man has something before you
tax him. Don't tax him in advance for what
he hopes to make by his diligence, but which
he may never make at all. 4 man was taxed
for being physician or lawyer-for exercis
ing his talent or his ability. No man is taxed
for being a machinest or carpenter, or for
keeping grocery store. Where was the Justice
of this? Was physician different kind of man
from carpenter that he should be expected to
pay for a right to do his work, when the car
penter did not pay? All honest business was
equal and the law should not divide the men
who pursued the different branches into classes
The State had always Disseminated agains
cities, taking the diligence of the poor in town