Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1875-04-02

C umittee Of eleven Zee appointed Ly he chair 10
S9nlcr WIN Them IN regard thereto a.d induce re
R,soIrtd further. That until the action of Co1gr IS
aGaiust any enforcement of the provisions Of the law
affecting personal property.
Remarks by Mr. w. =. Cox.
Mr.. Cox said: The committee, gentlemen.
have dcputed me TO act rs their mouth
piece TO give expression 10 their general
views on the subject OF this law, and thOugh
feel quite i'll prepared to do 50, / shall pro-
ceod todischarge the duty as best can. The
resolutions which seem pertinent to these
proceedings are tie last two
Rs'oirtd fsrfisr, That We Geprccatc the harsh
Commissioned. Of the District Of Columbia aud that
con Mite Of eleven be arp.inled by the chair TO
T-Ei5lon OF their acti. \, m the premises.
eress can be had unoa the subject, we earnestly pro-
tet against any enfo 81 the provisions II the
law affecting personal property.
Upon eXamiuin.: the law, we find that the
only duties which are devolvel upon The
commissioners III reference to the enforce
ment Of the Law, are, first, the appointment
OF aSs6 ssors, and, secondly, the preparation
of schedules for their guidance The appoint
mento assessors has already been made, and
IL is not the subject of any complaint or dis
SatiS;@ elton whatever The only topic, there
fore, " hich seems tome To be Opon for discus
sion here, is the
SUBJECT or THE SCHEDULE.
which IL an Interpretation Of the law. given
ofilcia ~ by your honorable Board of Com
inISSioners. and il IL To that subject that
propose briefly To address myself. In the
first T ace, we wish to diSclaim any purpose
10 ask You, gentlemen, to disregard or eVade
any plain requirement of this law. We are
wen aware that you would not be sweTved
nom Jour duties by any such appeal. Bur
The Jaw was evidently passed 10y Congress
under great niscOnreptiOn OF its effect. IL
was not understood by the community. ard
the possibilities of its application We're never
appreciated by the people until the prOmul-
cation Of your ScclUle. which struck the
whole community with CONSERVATION. Now,
We have never had an opportunity Of being
heard IN reference L" the true meanin- or in
tent Of the law, and that is the hearing which
we now seek. II must bc admitted, ! take
il, that the law j. very general and very
NasUe in its term. Il is capable of very
Wite application. II l. susceptible OF being
much more confined, and confined too,
WITH REASON AND JUSTICE.
and in strict conformity with the rules OF in
depreciation. THIS being the case we wish
To invoke ON your part denomination Of
the law. and a reconsideration of its true
meaning and intent. II is r fact OF noiOriety.
| believe. that in the debate. which was n
very mC39Cr one, on the subject of this tax.
IN Congress, il was proclaimed, as upon au
IhOTiiN OF TIE Comm >Sloner>, that the
amount OF taxation 10 be realized from This
tax on personal property would be about
$4,000 Mr.. Randall stated that the amount
of tax which il was estimated would be real
lzcd from taxation on personal property was
SlGOG03. And 3@ain, lie said that the gSti-
mate made by the Commissioners OF the
amount 40 be raised upon personal property
was $l00"GD. Thai, too, when a tax OF - on
the hundred dollars was under discussion.
That tax would be the tax upon - .01o0" #
personal property. II seems. therefore. a. , De
q fact. lot gains.tid, that ii was expected.
both 10y Congress and by your honOra hIe
body. that the personal property 10 be Affect
ell 10y TINS tan would not exceed the sum of
~j"Ca,Gt0. il taxed - on the hundred. If
~l.5D were the tax, the amount to De affected
IN order 10 raise that sum would he ~G.6aG.r1
and seine old hundred dollars. II appears
never 10 have been in the contemplation OF
either congress or you gentlemen that q
larger &inOunt.oi prop .Gty should be al. c,ed
by TIE operation OF This law. AMI 10 IS the
t!Cmcn acquainted with the subject. that IN
ICimt of !aCt, as the laH has been Interpreted,
a. viii embrace 1T Least
TEN TINES TIE AMOUNT
that WAS III contemplation by Congress and
yourselves. | mention This consideration 10
Sow HAT more restricted Interpreted on of
The law would really carry out the deSi-a OF
Congress. ard if Z can te done in harmony
with The language. and according % the
proper rule oI construction. | take IL FOR
granted YOU viii Che"rIUiiy consent - 10 IL.
Now. then. to come down To one or two de-
tails in the matter In the FIRST place. there
are some things about which there can be no
room To dispute. Tie law itself does subject
10 taxation, i'm terms. deeds OF trust. mort
cages. DC. II al>o COOS on and subjects 10
taxation cIei.ts. amt o;ler ,itDyes az a. ion or
ROSES iO.. Now. mere Il the field of Uncer-
tamty. Here l. The field where ii is open to
you 10 give liberal ana beneficial, or
\ RESTRAINED AND IN URIOUS CONsTRCC-
TION
L. the law. II i n >Ghjcct OF construction
since il 5 vague ami uncertain. 'Cre,iitS''
is a term which has TO perfectly definite
meaning. Chcscs in action and CLOSES in pos
session are understood by lawyers. but not
- well understood hy the community at
large ard are open to some construction and
Interpretation. Your schedule, FOR example,
assumes to tax money IN pOSSe-Si5n.v
Now, money" - not mentioned in terms in
the law, and il would only be taxable under
the nf at of ''caDsrs III pO>Sc>S ION [ 10 not
think that IN legal rtrlarce, or in common
understanding, money in possession has
ever been considered 10 come within the
cases OF ''c'tyses in possession The term is
more appropriately applied TO personal chat
iCiS. which bear an ear mark. Bat execution
against mans goods il never levied upon
money in possession distinction is alwayS
made IN the administration of estates be
tween money. ana goods and chatiels. and
chGScs in action. OF debts due 10 the estate.
Although we have had no time To look for
preCeGeutS. think We may say il il most
unusual. if not unprecedented, that money
shall be deemed a subject OF taxation. be-
cause IL IS not really 4 chIttei, nor a ctosaS
iii action. II is nothing but
TOOL or TRADE,
the same as mechanics instruments are tools
al his art. \ tax Of That sort seems 10 me
totally impracticlbe for this reason: The
law, among the exemptions in section Sth,
says: Thirdly. Such property as = now
exempt from taxation by the laws OF The
United states And we know by the act OF
lst2 all bonds, Treasury notes, ana other OBJ
legations bi the nilctl STATES are exempt
from taxation. Now
Governor DennisOn.-What is the point?
do hot know as i get IL exactly.
Mr.. COX.-l am explaining why the tax
upon money in possession would be imprdc-
ticable. This law eXemptS from ia Xatiou all
property which is now exempted by the laws
III the United States. BY tire act OF Congress
of 1862, which can give a more specific ref
erence tO-sect. 1901, Revised L.. S. Statutes.
That act says: '.Ail stocks, bonds, Treasury
notes, and other obligations OF the United
States shall be exempt from taxation b.
or under the state, municipal, or local au-
thority." So that this is the property which,
in the terms of this law, is exempt from tax
alton by the laws of the United States. Now,
upon the announcement that money was To
be made the subject of Ia Ration here, | sup
pose that almost every man in the District
converted all the money he al into govern
mcnt securities-Treasury notes-which are
not the subject of taxation. So that TO I'M
dertake TO tax money in possession is really
thing impracticable. The law can be
avoided without an evasion. Then the same
remark may he made in reference to deposits
in the bank, which are one of the items in
the schedule For all practicable purposes,
that is also "money in possession which is
held by the depOsitOr's agent subject To his
rail- and uplpr his command af a nOmanf's