The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-03-16

A CONSIGNMENT OF 10000 pounds of starch
IRON Cincinnati to- Stokes & Walker arrived
here on Saturday per Chesapeake and Ohio
railroad.
Suggestions as 10 tine Ordinance
Leyyang Taxes.
For the Dispatch.l 3F.. IS
- RICHMOND, VA, March 8. 1874.
LOUIS Wagner, Esq, Member Of Corncil,
Madison Ward, Richmond, Va.:
My Dear Sir,-I desire TO call your atten.
ton to what presume Is an oversight Of
the Council in the ,adoptiontSf the ordinance
for the assessment Of city taxes. .,.--
In the 18th section Of the ordinance as
originally reported, the 7tb, 9Th, and OH
lines read rs follows: "Third. or all his
shores in corporations or other Joint stock
companies, whether located in or out
of the city, not otherwise assessed for
city taxes" When, however, the ordi.
nance was finally adopted, it was after an
amendment OF the 9th line Of section 16,
whereby the worn . 1...,hieihern, and the
words "out OF" were stricken out, leaving
the paragraph to read, @Of all his shares in
corporations or other joint stock companies
located in the city," sc. The effect of this
alteration IS to exempt any stocks owned by
citizen in corporation having its place OF
business outside of the city, whereby the
revenues of the city will be greatly reduced
and citizens will escape part Of the burden
Of the taxation which they should properly
bear, and as consequence the burden of
| other citizens will be increased.
The city Of Richmond had an unuuestion.
able right to tax any citizen upon any stock
owned by him In any nonresident corpora
| ton except national bank. Property is
| divided for taxation into two cIassss-real
aud personal and personal property is sub
divided into what the law styles visible and
tangible property, or goods and ch,ttels
and Intangible property, or chooses in action
under which latter class stocks in incorpo-
rated companies are embraced. -,
/ Real estate is always taxed where it is
located, without regard 20 the domicil of the
owner. Tangible and visible personal pro
perty may be taxed in, the same way, bu,
chooses in action have no other situs or loca
tion in law than the domicil Of the owner
| It follows, Therefore, that the citizens of Rich
moud should be taxed upon their stocks ant
other chooses TN action not exempt from taxs
ton, whether located in or out of the city.
So far the action of the Council above a
luded to has been to the detriment of th
city interest, as we'll as to the interest Of
large number of citizen taxpayers. Their
is another section of the same ordinance
which, while apparently an error in favor Q
the city, will prove equally obnoxious to be
interest and to that OF her citizens. In th
18th section officers OF banking associations
corporations, and joint stock coDpanie
are. required TO give in for assessment
the banks, the number of their respectiy
shares; the other interpretations, the amoun
of their capital and assets.
The capital and assets, as referred to ii
the said ordinance, and the bank share
therein mentioned, are the property respec
lively of the shareholders Of all such insti
ltutions, and should be taxed in the hands O
1.-The owners thereof by the county or corpo
ration where they reside. Therefore thi
section of the ordinance will raise question
as to othe, liability Of nonresident stockholG
ers. to be taXed by the city or, by the loc:
Iauthority under which they live. A citize
of Petersburg, required to give in for taxa
ton shares Of stock owned in corporation
lof the city of Richmond, finds that the cit
Iof Richmond has collected tax frol
the company on account of his stool
and that he has paid double tax.
his application is made for relief again:
Ethe ayn1ent of tex to the city of Peter
Ibury he is informed that the tax IS leSi
land his remedy is not for the tax le7ie
| by the city Of Petersburg, but he must SEE
1 redress against the erroneous assessment
Ithe city of Richmond. The result "
Egreatly prejudice the value of stocks in OF
Focal corporations, and will withdraw cal
tai from the city, as people will not be 4
clined, who live away from Richmond,
embark their capiLarin her local enterprls
under such disadvantages. also desire
icall your attention 10 what / conceive TO
La mistaken policy on the part Of the Council
restriction OF license-taXes against comm
tsion merchants, and others engaged
trade. Il believe that IL can be demonstrate
that the paltry revenue which is raised
this way is extremely disastrous to the cor
mercial Interests of the city. Obviously, II
citizen of Halifax county, Va, or OF al
other largely producing tobacco country, cs
come TO. Richmond TO do the business OF
commission merchant, and can thereby i
duce bis friends and neighbors to give III
their trade, which before had gone to 9th
places, Richmond would be largely .benefte
~ thto 10 - SiS Ill q aLsksAiSO3 Wv AhAsS
est of the city would be cnha need just
proportion as the number of such instanc.
was increased. Is it not then the policy
the city rather TO encourage such instanc
by q bestowal Of favor than to discouras
| by the imposition of burden?'
| 1t is common assertion among tax-pa
ers that the Legislature OF Virginia, in ii
passage Of its tax-bills, Incorporate therei
unconstitutional and illegal provisions, upo
| the hypothesis that the amount involved |
each taxpayer is too small to justify the c,
| pense and trouble of resort to the courts. fc
correction; and further, it Is presumed th,
| many, through inattenti0n or ignorance, ma
not apprehend their rights. II these asset
tions are true,i it is shocking to the mort
sense that such a want OF. faith and regar
for law should exist upon the part Of th
lawmakers as IN example to the people, an
it must in time produce a host Of evil
which it takes neither prophet nor the so
or n prophet to foreteI!.
/ am, respectfully and truly,
@-: ni''t# Your obedient servant,
~ 49,. CHARLES U. WILLIAMS.