Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-05-10

WINS OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS.
Tie District Commissioners yesterday
addressed the following communication to
Hon. George E. Spencer, chairman OF the
Senate Committee on the District OF Colum.
bia:
I'm reply to the letter of your committee
enclosing 10 us copy OF bill Oh. r 2656)
to eeulate the assessment and collection OF
taxes Tor the support OF the government of
the District OF Columbia, and for other pur-
poses and inviting our attention thereto,
we have the honor TO present the following
views:
1. In our judgment, the rate of taxation
should be uniform In the District. The pres
ent as sessment WAS made under q law levy
Ing the rate OF one and a half per centum
ehout the District, giving, we believe,
Injustice can arise now should one tax rate
for city and county be again adopted by
Congress. To illustrate the results to be ob-
tanned from taxation OF real property with
the variable rates as proposed, we give the
estimated amounts derivaole under 1t for
each division:
washington, SIS, si9, 1884, atty per
cent. .....-S1 ,1S2, 234 OIL
Georgetown, s5,si9 81, at per
Co,r,1 "a ~ la =; =; 90 so
81 ,aO6, 6lO 43
TIE contrast in tie amounts To be con-
tributed By the several sections of the Dis
trict, IL will be seen, are very marked.
Should uniform rate be established, the
results would be as follows, the rate being
\ per ceLt.:
Washing ton.... ........ ....s1,'S 23i OF
GeoTgetown-........-. H,I39 %
County ........................... 13l,766 40
3, 4Ol 100 p
from which IL appears that with a like rate
OF taxation, Georgetown and the county
combined Will Contribute less than q of the
entire amount. Tue injustice arising rom
different rates for different sections in the
case Of personal taxation, IL such tax be sus-
tanned. Will be readily perceived. A share
Of stock, or bond, Or money Is as valuable
TO the holder In one part as another, and yet
IL is proposed To tax such property ( per
cent. IN Washington and y per cent. in the
county. The owner OF a horse on one side of
Boundary street is to be taxed Z, and on
the other p per cent.
2. 1t is prOpOGed 10 tax the bonds OF the
District, the effect of which will be to drive
such securities entirely out of the District.
3. That the assessment of all property in
the District within the time specified In the
18th section of the bill impracticable,
:. That the 10th section OF the bill we ap-
prehend may defeat the entire proposed tax
alton, as IL is thought men OF chara cter
suited to the position of assessors will refuse
The office in view Of the penalties Imposed.
Objections of technical character coult be
mace 10 numbers OF the provisions OF the
committee in their review of Its provisi ons.
Having presented such objections as appear
most patent, we have in general terms TO
state that The taxation of personal property
In the manner proposed appears to be repug-
pant to the views and foreign to The customs
and usages of the people of the District. 1t
is very generally held that such a tax-ex-
cept, perhaps, In very modified form
would be injurious to the best interests of
the District. One result illustrative of the
erect OF such a tax is already experienced
in the advance OF from 1 per cent. TO per
cent. in the rate of interest demanded for
leans since the passage by the House of the
bill under discussion. Foreign capital has
been Withdrawn, and we are informed in
creased difficulty is experienced In obtain
Ing money upon real estate security. The
borrower is already made to pay the tax, in
anticipation Of It's becoming law. The
District is very limited In extent Many of
the wealthy citizens have property Just be.
tablished TO list personal property for a very
light taxation.
We deem it proper TO invite the attention
Of your committee TO the original tax-biIl as
reported to the House OF Representatives by
the majority of the Committee of the House
on the District OF Columbia. Certain changes
gestsd. but in view of the importance OF
prompt action, we refrain from making
Them. In our judgment the net amount to
6e realized from the license system proposed
In the committees bill will be as large as
could be anticipated from the other The
ncense system can be enforced without ad-
dltional officers or increased expense; whereas
Ire personal tax would be both expensive,
dificrlt OF collection and odiOus TO the
people. 1t Is neld, and vi it'll apparent ius-
tice, that Congress having fixed upon the
should be granted any preference in respect
TO the manner of paying 1T.
The license system now IN force, only more
limited in its amount, is one to which the
{. immunity is accustomed, and the bill re-
, Itvd b. the committee, as we are advised,
Was pIroved by Influential citizens we'll
Brown to all classes OF people in the Dis
tTict.
The receipts from the bill as amended By
US may be estimated as follows:
Tax on 1921 900 at X per cent. 81 $50 900
Deduct 10 per cent. delinq uencies.... 1884,
Net result from real estate .sI,2i2,O0o
Add for licenses pIoper as estimated
by collector, per centages on de-
ppsits and receipts not Included. 275,O0O
SI,5l7 900
The license tax on furniture aud per cent
ages on deposits or banks and receipts OF
agents may be estimated at from sl25,OOO to
500 600, although no data exists on which to
found estimates In any sense reliable Is to
receipts from these sources. Adding to the
above amount of 81 SIT 900 for these items,
IL appears that the net revenues to be real
lied from all sources will be between
81 $40 GOO and ST. 100000"