The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-02-24
LETTER FROM MIR. ARCHIBALD
MITCHELL.
Impolicy Of Taxation to Build Railroads :
seventy Millions Absorbed by Ex-
cessiye Taxation.

Esiitors Democrat Permit me again
I To use your columns, not rs President OF
the Property Holders Union. but as a
, citizen whose fortunes are inseparably
, united with the fate Of this city. and as
one who takes deep interest I'm public
! affairs, by reason of their all-controlltng
! influence upon the fortunes OF every In
dividual member of the community.
, do not ask space in your valuable
columns for the purpose OF endeavoring
to controvert your views In regard to
railroads but to show rather. that al
} though you quote n passage from my
! communication for the purpose OF dis
senting from IL, yet when ] am properly
understood. our opinions are almost
identically the. same; although, some
: of your conclusions In regard to the eX-
, pected advantages to flow from this
road, or any road. | do not accept I'm
their entirety. That part of my com
munication, to which you object, Is as
: follows:
| "The failure of this company to in
, duce capitalists to embark their capital
in this road is strong presumption,
almost amounting to absolute proof,
an Investment. and therefore ,ciH not
, contribute TO The prosperity Of This PEG
/, pie. and OF consequence the imposition
of tax to aid in its construction will
not only be q wrong against property,
J but will be attended with no advantage
} commensurate with the amount exacted
from the people
Your comments are as follows I'll
this be true then we must conclude that
: no enterprise In Louisiana can be made
remunerativc; for 1t is impossible just
' now to induce capitalists to venture
large investments In any Of them. The
difficulty In inducing investments In
:. Louisiana enterprises Ia due to two
] causes, and neither of them Is that the
. enterprises ARE not likely to prove
] remunerative.' Indeed. we think that
! there Is no State In the Union in which
more profitable enterprises might be
> started than in Louisiana. But the
character Of our State government
= promises no protection to property, on
terprise or life II is well known that
the government has not the authority
! of law that IL Is n ustlrpatiop, antago-
9 nizing the best interests Of the State !;
+ that It's courts are corrupt and may be
!, bought, and that It's heavy hand is felt
In pillaging the property and CONNER /,
cial interests of tho commonwealth.
Q / believe ! could quote your entire arti-
| clio without dissenting from single
!, fact therein stated, and from very few
of your conclusions. Nor Is there n
. single fact stated by you In the slight
! est degree inconsistent with any part Of
r the passage In my communication
a quoted by you. -.
: have stated that capitalists would
not invest In this road. because In their
Q opinion II would not be rCmunerative.
. Now hold that this fact is self-evident ;
a else the doubtful and very Objectionable
:, means Of tax would not have been re-
sorted to. / have in no part OF my com
munication stated tchy capitalists did
not consider the road good Investment.
: Hence the reasons you give con be ac-
, cepted without invalidating my argu-
. ment. / merely stated that they would
not invest in IL, and deduccd from that
n fact that the road would not be proflta-
BILE to the public ut large.
a do not deny that railroads contri-
butte. with other means OF facilitating
: communication between different lO4
Il calities. to increase the public wealth.
y This is not only fundamental axiom
: OF political economy, but is too evil
:, dent to admit OF a doubt In the under
standing OF any one of the most ordina-
= ry intelligence. But 1 maintain that,
like every other productive enterprise,
: when roads are likely to be remunera-
, tive, capitalists will embark their means
: In them Us an investment, In which
: case they will be remunerative to their
n owners and contribute to the public
4 prosperity, otherwise not. Therefore ]
deduce that when efforts have been
made to obtain stock subscriptions to
7 build road, which have failed, and
h taxation is resortod to, it is primo faoie
Y evidence that this road will not be OF
q public advantage. i take my stand on
) this position, hence believe that II this
y road was completed and running into
9 New Orleans, although certain interests
!. would be promoted, that no sensible ad-
/ vantage would result to the people In
q tho aggregate and II a tax was laid on
!, property to aid in the construction oil
u the road, the advantages would be fal
Q short of the evils inflicted on tho com.
It munity. Such is my opinion, which, II
a necessary, will more fully elaborate at
some future timo.
y. But the burden OF proof lies on those
q who advocate taxing city property to aid
l. in the construction Of this road to show
precisely what its advantages will be
l know that tho advantages claimed foI
IS this road are utterly fallacious, and am
. prepared to prove them so, when have
!. anything to argue against except mere
" general predictions of u financial mil.
g lenium, when it is completed, whether
q tho evils inflicted by misgovernment
| continue to exist or have been removed
l think that the general opinion
= which seems to prevail that the con
l. struction of railroads running into this
city would be a panacea for all our ills,
is not only q fallacy but very danger
C Gus fAllacy, because 1t diverts the public
d from all Investigation as to the true
= cause-I will not say of our want OF
prosperity but of our great and rapidly
q increasing poverty. You are correct,
! indisputably correct, when you ascribe
" our poverty to misgovernment, giving
neither security to person nor property,
and particularly felt in the shape of ex-
!, cessive taxation, an evil against which
n neither a fertile soil, favorable eli
o mate, a happy location nor all the in
/ tellect, energy and industry of man can
IS contend with any hope Of success.
Q Hence, all railroads and other under
It takings which enterprising and public
l. spirited citizens inaugurate in the hope
y OF restoring our prosperity, will prove
Q disastrously abortive, until the great
u evil Of disagreement is removed
:, In the line Of your argument, Adam
d Smith shows that one cause, and a very
/ important cause, of the great progress OF
Q Great Britain in wealth, is the perfect
}. security Of property under an excellent
system of honestly administered laws.
The learning, talents and perfect integ-
> | - 4 i,rIicinru hnva in cOp Fl