The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-07-19

of Governor Peck, let US examine the law, |
and see for ourselves what there is so very |
about it. Prior to its pas
sage, the General Statutes-chapter SO,
section 14-provided that "all machinery |
" employed in any branch of msnufac-
" ture, and belonging to any corporation
" or company, shall be assessed to such
" corporation or company in the town
" where such machinery may be situated
" or employed and In assessing such
u" stockholders for the stock In any man.
/" ufac,nring corporation or company, there
" shall first be deducted from the value
d" thereof, the value of the machinery and
" real estate belonging to such corporation
" or company" so far as this goes, there
certainly can be no objection to it. II sim
ply provides that the machinery used by
manufacturing companies shall be assessed
to the company ; and that the company
being assessed thereon, and having paid
taxes on the assessment as, also, on the
real estate of the company-as provided in
another statute--the stockholders of the
company shall not again be assessed and
taxed thereon. in other words, that the
company and the individual members
thereof shall not each be taxed for the same
property--that the machinery and real es-
tate of manufacturing companies and cor
porations shall not be subject to double
taxation, but shall, only be taxed in the
same proportion as other property.
The law of 1874 re-enacts the provision
of the general statutes in precisely the same
language, and then goes on to declare that in
assessing the stock, there shall be deducted,
in addition to the value of the machinery
aud real eetate, the value of any other
property belonging TO such corporation
4" or company, and represented by such
4" stock, which may be situated in any
other state or country, and which shall
be liable TO aud shall be taxed by such
"other state or country Anything
wrong, anything Objectionable in this 1t
simply gives to manufacturing companies
and their stockholders the same rights that
Mr.. Holden and other individuals have al
ways had, no matter what the law may be.
Lev us see how this is. Mr.. Holden, let
US suppose, has store of goods in New
York city, valued at one hundred thou
aand dollars, upon which by the laws Of
New York, he pay taxes in that city. He
resides in Clarendon, and what would he
say of the equity or justice of the claim
that because that stock of goods was per-
sonal property, and because personal prop
erty followed the person of the owner, the
| goods should, also, be assessed to him in
Clarendon, and be be compelled to pay
taxes thereon? If there is an impropriety
in exemptDg manufacturing companies
| and their stockholders from taxation, in
this state, on personal or other property
on which they pay taxes in other states,
then would there be an improperly in ex-
emp,ing Mr.. Holden in the case supposed.
The law does not exempt the capital
"stock from taxation equal to the amount
" of property on which taxes are paid out
" side OF the state" 1t excmpts the CAPT.
tai stock from taxation equal to the value
of the property represented by the stock
on which taxes are paid outside of the
state, but the value of which is not to be
Offset against visible property of the COM
pany or corporation in this state. The
benefit, such as it is, inures not 30 much to
the corporation or the stakeholder, as to
the consumer. No matter whether the
property is subject to double taxation or
not, those "heavy dividends" of which
Mr.. Holden speaks, would remain the
same. The taxes, like our customs and in
terna revenue duties, must in the end
come out of the consumer, no matter who
pays them in the first instance. The taxes
whether double or single, will be added tC
the price, and must be paid by the pur
chaser, and the reduction of taxation
inures to his benefit more than to the
IN manufacturer. But the question, after all
is one of simple equity and justice, and il
this Should Mr.. Fairbanks, Mr.. Holder
or any other resident of Vermont be com
PEELED to pay taxes in New York city OF
one hundred thousand dollars worth OF
property, aud then be compelled to pay
taxes in Vermont on dentically the SAINT
property? This question, we believe, car
safely be left to the intelligence and dis
eliminating justice of the people of Yer
mont.
A word more, and we are through. Thu
people of Vermont have, for years, beer
laboring to induce manufacturers to inves
their capital, and carry on their business
in this state. Act after act, has been passet
for their encouragement. Towns hav
been authorized to grant them immunit,
from taxation for series of years, ant
towns have granted the immunity. Gen
eral laws been passed absolutely exemptin
manufacturing establishments from all tax
alton for a term of years. The cry ha
been "Give US more manufactures or W
deterorate as state But when GU
ufacturing enterprises, and invest thei
capital therein, and the general sssembl
of Vermont says that they shall be take
but once on the same property, individual
are found to appeal to the prejudices c
"lhe hard working tax payers" against wha
they are pleased to term "blosted stock
"holders receiving ''heavy dividends,
and to array the one against the Other
, And yet we call ourselves an intelligent