The New Orleans daily Democrat., 1880-03-01

First Three mills for interest on the con.
snliantad boads and on tho new issue Of
bonds to BE- exchanged therefor.
Hocond--One mill Tor leveGs.
Fa'sao66s FFas6e % m nos ol pahSS shs general sasss nd
The arguments which have. been made
against thls division ara contradictory 0f each
other -NnreconCilAble. Vehement arguments
have been made against the taxation Of aN
Constitution, On the ground that while tho rats
g reduced 10 six mills on the dollar, tho addl.
lions Of taxable property and valuations will
really make the taxation equal 70 thirty mills
On the existing assessment rolls.
II that be true, then ono Of two conclusions
= First.-Only one.third Of all property In this
State u now on tho assessment rolls. or
m proRsf Y - IN 1ac sas rolls
III either hc R fact the sooner II ID found out
and retnedied the better.
1t has been repeatedly, constantly COM
plant, that real estate and the movable
personal property, has been made TO bear the
entire burden Of taxation. while the wealth 81
tho State. IA tho shape of line furniture,
Jewels and other luxuries. and of money ss-
curities. obl!gations shares ol stocks mo mort; :;
merchandise, escaped entirely. Tho real es-
tate and tho tangible personal property ia
already on the assessment rolle. Il this bill
will add 10 largely to those rolls, NJ contend
"a In argument. this addition mot be- Of real
estate and its accessories and attachments. but
must be of articles Of luxury. wealth and in-
veetment Just mentioned. For the first time
In the history Of the State has q revenue bill
been presented for the taxation q those
made against such addition an account
that II will largely increase the aggregate
taxation to thirty mills. II this
ponplaint were made by the repre-
camille clasees II would be plausible. but when
rnNde by the representatives 81 the parishes,
where nearly I'LL the people arc agricultural
and have almost Ill their property IN the
shape of real estate. mules cattle and vehl.
cles, which Are taxed already and always
have been, IL becomes lncomprehensible
No man could nationally contend that
the rural population OF Louisiana and
the non-profeslOnnl and non -oommercinl
and non-inercantile classes Ia tho cities
and towns are possessed Of luxurious prop
erty, Intangible Investments and the other
appliances of wealth. to any considerable OK
tent, much less to tho extent Of treblinH their
existing assessments. y " pe iacs .aI1 shat
poverty OF the people Of Louisiana is myth,
and the late Constitutional Convention acted
under q gross mistake IN cutting down the
salaries Ok lts officials 20 low.
there was to be no Considerable increase Of as
eeaaments In the country or elsewhere, ex-
Oept OF the property Of people In good Cir.
cumstances, which has heretofore escaped
more than $500 worth Of Okifproperty.
The hundredth man Ia able to pay on the ex-
cess and ought to do 30. Peculiar stress has
been laid on the assertion that property 10
taxed e when nus t,oe zen r. s1a ana On ad sme M
taxed, and, second, that the notes given Tor
the price Ok it ID taxed also.
But the complaint was not made against
taxing the land, but was urged against tax.
ins the notes. That is. 4 was not argued that
the involved purchaser. striving to work out
81 debt, should have his land exempted or
omitted from taxation, but that the holder Of
the notes twho. perhaps, may have bought
On these notes. The case would be the same
i the land were sold for cash, because then
the land would be taxed and the money. paid
for it would Rlso be taxed. Some Of the
richest men N the State have their 9. principal
certainly would not approve . revenue bill
which does not tax them. Suppose, In the
case stated, both the purchaser Of the land
md the holder of the notes should die. Then
would be placed In the inventory Of the
holders and bo appraised Rt their actual
value, It is manifest that the land
must be assessed and taxed ,,ns here nas is
But whether or not the notes can Be taxed, 1t
must be inquired, Are they property2 II not
they cannot be taxed at all. Il they are prop
erty the constitution requires their taxation.
Whoever thinks any promiSSOry note lg not
property within the meaning Of the constitu-
Hon CAyl .'test the correCtnese OF the ASSESS
meat thereof before tho courts OF Justice"
This bill, In Its present shape, does not under
take TO decide that 1t is property.
CROPS.
It has been strenuously declared that the
bills, Nos. 81 and LAG, tax cotton, corn, etc.
eoll. and furnish the means with which to pay
taxes. From the time Of planting the seed
until the crops are consumed at home or ex-
ported abroad they are merely III 9 temporary
existence transitory llse They are hsr ..
are not taxable property IN any sense Of the
word, and neither Of the three bills contem-
plates such an Idea as taxing them. Those
who 10 good faith opposed the former bills on
The foregoing arguments are made by
their authors to establish two propositions
riret-ThAt the taxation which this bill
provides will be excessive and onerous.
Second That the interest tax OF three
mills is entirely too much on such large as
II the first proposition prove to be true,
the treasury Of the State will be we'll provided
Tor during the next two years, and the off,
win be ct last fully paid, the levees will be
maintained and the schools be kept up.
Ifthere should be any excess It can easily
be utilized to support the government, Its
schools and Its charities In 1882 and after
ward, and the General Assembly In 1882 can
reduce the rate below six mills.
III the second proposition be true, It Will re-
store confidence In the credit OF the State and
will enable the State to save 81, ,0S0. 600 BY In
ducing the refunding Of It's consolidated bonds
into new bonds at seventy-tlve cents on the
dollar and 4 per cent interest, as demon
strated In the previous report Of this commit
tee And, moreover, the State can save q
large sum by using the surplus OF said taxes
to buy up the consolidated bonds at fifty
cents on the dollar. But when the same
representatives come to argue the sufti-
Nency Of the allowance OF one mill
Tor public education and one mill
for the general fund, they ut once SHIFT their
poeition and adopt the contradictory argu-
ment that the assessment will not be large.
When discussing three mills for interest they
estimate the assessment at $SOO, ,0Oo. 600; when
discussing one mill for education and one
mill for the general fund, they take the