Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-06-24
.THE AsSEssnIENr Law.

/.
Avalanche containing q cursory comparison
between the Assessment bill introduced in
the last legislature by Representative VIII
hanson of Shelby and the law as raised.
We jind upon examination that there is
grester difference between the bill of Mr..
Williamson, which the AUdIanche commends
and the law, than We had supposed.
The original bill was evidently drafted
with an eye TO the interests of the citizens
of Memphis and other cities. That it
would have been more acceptable to them
than the present law we cannot doubt; but
that 1t would bsge been as acceptable to
the people Of the State at large, we are not
prepared to admit. The difference in the
principle of assessment between the bill and
the law is difference vastly in favor ofthe
eitys and against the couniry-if the bill
as originally drawn had been passed. The
AUdtdnche says "Mr. Williamson's bill
specified eight business avocstions for priv
ilege tax. The bill as passed specified forty.'
There are no more privileges taxed now
than there were before the passage of the
present law. There has long been strug-
gle for years in the Legislature, between
those whose occupations have been taxed
and those whose property was taxed. The
payers Of the tax on privilege, or occups-
tons, have insisted that property should
bear the tax. On the ether hand, the own
ers Of property have insisted that privileges
or occupations should bear full proportion
of the burden Of taxation. The country
members have generally carried the day,
and the assessment laws have imposed
full share of taxation on privileges or occu-
patioDs. The question has been before the
Supreme Court of the State, and that court
has decided that the tax imposed on the
Occupation" was constitutional. Mr.. Will
liamson's bill, comparatively, wiped out
revenue from privileges and threw it almost
exclusively on property.
His bill, we are told by the ArGIanche,
proposes to exempt from tarGtiol5 all
buildings aud improvements for the space
Of five years from completion,
use or occupation" This
would have been highly advantageous to
the cities where the ''buildings and i'm
provements" so greatly preponderste, but
we doubt whether it would have been rel
ished by the people of the country. Nor
do we see how this exemption could have
been reconciled with that provision of the
constitution which epphatically declares
that "Gl property, real, personal and mired,
shall be tared," except certain specific ex
emptions, among which We DO not tind
buildings and Improvements" Another
difference we find is that the original bill
exempted from taxation "all bonds of the
Gate of Tennessee" aud omitted the elev
enth paragraph of the seventh section of the
law, which taxes 'the amount of income
derived from United States bonds, and all
other stocks and bonds not taxed dd UGlO-
rem" In this we know that the bill of Mr..
Williamson would have been far preferable
to the owners of stocks and bonds, but we
take it that the owners of horses, mules,
cattle, sheep, hogs and land would prefer
the law as it is.
There are other differences between the
original bill and the law as passed which,
to those engaged in banking and other
stock companies and in merchandise, make
the bill far preferable to the law. But these
very differences make the law preferable to
the bill il he estimation Of all other classes
Of our people. For instance, tire original
bill entirely onljtS what is known as the
merchants tax, which, according to the
last Comptroller's report, amounted to over
100000 for the year ending Oct. l, 1872,
and which the country members have
again and again succeeded in retaining in
the revenue law against the bitter opposi-
ton OF the large mercantile cities.
In the original bill the shares of stock
holders in banking and other stock corpora
lions are not taxed, but in lieu there is
speciously proposed plan of taxing the capi-
tai stock of these corporations which, unde-
the exemptions they have 0y charter,
would amount to but little; and thus again
is the bill preferable to the law in the eyes
bankers and owners of stock, but all the
more Objectionable to the tax payers at
large. Thus We can well see how tie
Memphis AUGldnche and the Memphis
deles alton may greatly prefer The bill as in
troduced to the law as passed. But the
very reasons which m 4de the former so de.
sirable TO them made it so Objectionable to
other classes Of taxpayers, and caused those
important changes to be made which make
the law as it stands so obnoxious to the
bankers, brokers and stock jObbers of Mem
phis.
We have said nothing of other differences
between the bill and the law which relate
to The means by which the assessments are
to be made and the taxes TO be collected,
because they have nothing to do with the
sources from which the revenue is to be
raised. For instance, the bill provided that
the assessment should be made by five as
SCISSORS fer the county instead of one for each
civil district or ward, and that the County
Trustee should cOlec. the taxes instead of
a collector elected for that purpose.
The vital subject Of revenue cannot he
too well understood nor too thoroughly
discussed. Let the argument proceed.
SHERMAN'S BACK PAY.''
Senator Sherman writes to the Cincin-
natl Gazette under date of June 10:
81 notice telegram in yesterdays Ga
zette in which Gen. BoyDton classiies me /
tho Sapato-a who bava al