Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1874-05-08

AND FARMERS-PUBLIC M E ETH G
CALLED.
&C., &C., &C.. &c.
AS the tax bill is at present engrossing
most of the public attention in.this State,
we determined to get the views and facts
about the matter from the two gentlemen
whose names have been most widely men
toned in connection with it-both from
Augusta, Hon. A. H. FL. Stuart, CHAIR
man of the Finance committee OF the
House. and Hon. A. B. Cochran, Senator
from this county, who opposed 1t. Both
gentlemen gave their views to our reporter
d. at an interview on Tuesday, which will be
read with interest by both the merchants
and farmers:
WHAT MIR. STUART SAYS.
When we went down to Richmond we
met with two important questions. In the
first place we were brought squarely, face
to face, with the issue whether Virginia
was to repudiate OF not, and secondly, how
we were to carry on the State Govern
ment. in consequence of the great number
of coupons that were coming in for taxes.
We were compelled to cast around for how
money was to be raised; first, to pay the
expenses of the government, and second
to meet the obligations OF the State. we
found the agricultural interest, from all
accounts, from every part OF the State, In
languishing condition owing to the fire.
quent failures Of the crops, and other EN-
barrassments, and the general opinion was
it could not at present bare additional tax
alton, There were other considerations
tending to the same conclusion: first, the
constitution dedicates a portion OF the
money raised from this source to free
schools, and second, there is to be gen.
eral re-assessment Of lands under the con-
stitution in 1875.
LANDS TOO WERE NOW TAXED ~ PER
CENT HIGHER
than in 1860, in that year the tax being
40 cents in the hundred. The committee
of Finance began to look around to see
how our indispensable wants were to be
supplied. They looked for all new SUBJ
jects, and to insure those which would III
general opinion best bear taxation. They
increased the license tax on almost every
class of business. They sought to tax all
kinds of property which were exempt
The proposition was made to tax churches
on their value in excess of $4,000, also par
sonages, Masonic lodges, Odd Fellows
lodges, sc. The House declined to tax
church property atall, and also school
houses, whether public or private but
they did tax parsonages, Odd Fellows and
Masonic halls, &c. The Committee re-
ported their bill,
AN EXACT COPY OF THE BILL OF 1850,
taxing merchants, except it struck out the
specific tax of $50 on each merchant and
left the graduated tax according to the
scale of that year. They also taxed retail
dealers in whiskey in towns of over 1000
inhabitants 800 with the per centage on
sales. They taxed wholesale liquor deal
ers $3.50, and the same tax on sales that
was fixed by the law of 1850, on merchants
sales. Ordinary keepers, &C., were taxed
pretty much as they had been, except the
license tax was increased from $50 to 800.
There was also tax on retail tobacco
dealers of SIS OIL each person selling. Dis
tillers were taxed by graduated scale, be-
ginning at $50, and increasing with the
amount Of grain mashed by them, by reg
ularly graduated scale, and tax of 2 cents
per gallon was put on whiskey. Many 9TH
er minor subjects were taxed which need
not notice. When the bill came before the
House there was complaint, coming from
Winchester that the merchants tax was
too high, and Gen. Williams from that city
introduced proposition for tax on pur-
chases instead of sales, as the committee
had proposed. On behalf of the commit
tee l demonstrated against the change, in
sisting that we should stand by the old tax
which had been tried and with which the
people were familiar, but the House,
AT THE EARNEST SOLICITATION OF Ev-
cry MERCHANT IN THE HOUSE,
some seven or eight in number, insisted
upon the adopting the principle of Nh.
Williams bill. After it had been consid-
erably modified by Mr.. Blair of Roanoke,
who is son of Mr.. Walter d. Blair, a
large grocery merchant OF Richmond, his
proposition was adopted by the House, and
that now constitutes the feature of the
tax bill which relates to merchants. The
committee opposed it's adoption as long as
they had any hopes of defeating it, but
finally acquiesced because they found they
would be out voted in the House. The tax
of 2 cents gallon upon whiskey was earn
estly insisted upon by the majority of the
House, on the ground that it
WOULD NOT INTER FERE WITH HOME
MANUFACTURE,
because it only amounted to the cost OF
bringing foreign whiskey into the State
80 or 80 cents on the barrel. The original
proposition had been to tax whiskey DC a
gallon, but it was finally reduced to &c as
a compromise, but in my Judgment it will
be advantageous to our distillers OF tine
liquors, because it will tend to repress the
manufacture Of common liquors in the
State. The tax upon sales of liquors was
regulated, except as to license, precisely
as sales of other commodities under the
bill as reported by the COMMITTEES.
In regard to merchants licenses
1T WAS STATED IN CAUCUS
by Judge Thomas, that Levy, the largest
dry goods merchant in Richmond, had Sale
that while the tax on their business would
be increased several hundred dollars they
would feel much more than compensated
by the restoration of the credit OF the
State, and the feeling of confidence which
it would inspire in the purpose of the State
honestly to meet her engagements: which
would tend to strengthen the credit OF the
individual merchants of the State, ant