, 1874-09-05

STATE TAXATION AGAIN. :.
Tho Constitution of tho State Of illinois,
providing systom Of taxation by valuation, IT
q,,iroB TINT ttia valuation shall 80 natlo by poi
soma appointed for that p'spoao according
Inv, Tho law Of tho stpo onactB that MI vis
bio or tauaiblo propo-y ahall DO hasoBsod b
Assessors spcoially ,loctod for TINT purpose i
cach town or cor.lty. It also provides tint tll
valuo Of ri, -4iIroad property and tho valuation
of f.. capital stock aud franchises of all corpo
rntions ahall bo ilxod by tho State Board O
Equalization. Tho Supreme Court of Illinoi
Ina formally dcolaod that tho State Board upo,
these two points has exclusive Jurisdiction, ca,
make Its own rn1os and t1,a. is decisions, in til,
abaonco Of fraud, aro conclusive,
This brings ua to tho confederation of III,
question now ronding boforo that Board as K
tho valno to DO placed on tho capital Btook ant
franchises Of corporations. It is conoodcd thai
tue Constitution requires that tho valuation o,
property shall bo upon aomo Uniform ruto: that
II tho property In ono county bo valued at 25 po,
cont tta real valuo, aud in othor countios at 80
40, Co. GO, or 70 por cent this valuation shall TX
o4ualizod, ahd uniform standard bo adopted as
tho basis for taxation. It ia also conceded that
the valuo Of tho taxable prsporty as assessod By
tho Assessors in 1874 is 10 the aggregate, about
4o por cent Of tho total aetual value Of said prop
orty. Tho question now sriaos Can tho State
Board prcscrvo the uniformity Of valuation ro-
qnirod by tho Constitution II 1t shall ssacss tho
property Of railroads and tho capital stock OF
corporations at higher percentage than ottor
taxable property in tho Btato7 hIr. Der1clsop,
mon,bor OF the Board, moved TINT, az 40 per
cont Of tho real value was tho bas!s OF asscss.
ment for tho real and personal property Of al1
individuals In tho Btato, the samc percentage bo
adopted aa tho basis of asacss1nont OF all other
property, including capital stock and franchises.
Another member moved to place tho ratio at C5
por cont, but both motions wezo dofoasod.
1t may be wholly impossible 10 reach tho rneu,-
bera of that Board by tho ayonucs OF reason.
Tic scom to regard Chicago "a sort OF mine,
which 1t ia thoir duty to draw upon to pay tho
whole expenses Of tho Statc. Tho mombara
scom to think TINT thoro 1s q wonderful dopth in
tho word "franchiso;" thoy regard 1t "a q sort
OF patont OF nobility, grant Of special priyeges
monopoly, and IN ine1haustiblo source Of
wealth to the owner, aud for which heavy tux
ahould DO paid. Tho average mombor OF that
Board fa'ls to parcoivo eny distinction botweon
franchises. Whom thrco Or four mon combine to
aoll drugs or hardware, aud, for conyonienco
orgnnizo under tho general law o. corporation.
instoad OF doing buslncss as firm, tho State
Board inBlats TINT thoy hold franchise n for
which thoy must pay roundly. That there arc
corporations whose charters partako OF mo-
noroly. and which ontitle thom to sno-
clal privileges, thoro is no question, and
auch corporations, as horao-rai1way companies.
do hold. franchise which Is exclusive and
against common right, and honco that franchise
IR worth something in addition to tho yaluo of
Eho hornos. cars, and iron tracks used in tho
business. But when, undor tho ronoral lava NJ
'hia stato' any persons having money or credit
ean engage In any kind Of business, oithcr as
Individuals or corporations, and this privilege ia
'pcn to every ono FREQ Of charge, tho fran
Mia" tn sfn nn'y .vhnt ovcry nthnr 1,areoa mo,
10 cnn hardly bo claimed to havo any special
7aluo. This Ia truo Of all branches OF monr.
actur1ng IN this State. There is no such priv
logo that can bo exercised by corporation that
not equally opon to all other porsoos upon |
pplication. Tho state Doard, however, have q |
|ifforont notion thoy think that tho privilege |
# doing buslnoaa undor tho namo of the " Brown |
Smith Cloth Manufacturing Company" instead |
I Brown, Smith d Co., cloth manufsctur-
rs ia franchise Of such monopolizing
llaractor as to call for vigorous taxation, Thov
horoforo insist that the property Of all corpo-
ationa shall pay taxes On valuation Of 100
ents on tho dollar Of all they own, while ota.e
roperty shall pay only iu tho proportion of %
onts on tho dollar. Tho practical operation Of
Ills matter can bo illustrated by comparing tho
ax-bill of q corporation and that Of q private
ldiyidual engaged in tito Same business. owning
10 samo property, having tho aame capital, nud
wing tho same amount OF dobts, ABOwill
ave to pay taxca as follows:
9ai l sstats 5 worth slooooo, valued at $4,000, at
ersonal property worth sitoooS Valued =. 400
"'''SS''''''''''''''' '.'..''............,... COO
-"S"' 600
Tho corporation, however, will 10 taxed:
cal estate, samo az aboTe. Am
,niti a,i so @ nMtao ae hpose. 600
spfits asock, $2500 600, ut per cent. t....,,.. AIM
cn,s so,,. auo from corporation, $lo0,0o0 At 1per
'-''''''''''''''......' 1000
?sa tax TN real and peraonal PROPERTY. io
Het tax. -....................,.,Sy $4,000
Iho persons who compose tho firm doing buei-
1913 under corporate name pay 90, 900 tux On
o snmo amount of actual property rs is ovpod
tue firm doing business under their norsono,
mos' Tho difference ia tho ANIMAL penalty ,
cd by tho State board for tho uso OF tho
franchise It Is ono Of tho maryolB Of our
Fonne hystom that from thls ruling by tho
ate board there Is no appeal, and for its
equality and iniustico thero Ia M romaa, r