Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-03-03

|
legal liability upon the part OF the to pay th'
taxes and legal default in making the payment.
Now, that reasoning conclusivey proves that the
tax Is upon the person and not upon the property
III mas been decided in this State that to make
! sessment TO the heirs OF John Smith, deceased 1:
void, because you do not designate the person wbC
| is Charge with the taxes. These laws do not wish
TO reach the property. II it the intention tC
| reach the property certainly Court would even
pronounce such an assessment void. 1t has been
decided that an assessment TO the estate of John
smith, deceased is void for the same reason because
you do not designate the person charged with the
TAX. Now, do ydn want any more evidence to show
that 1t IS the intention OF this State to reach the
person and not the property -w why the State per
mits this property to go untouched untaxed, to
pay no share during the fiscal wear unless YOU name
or designate the persong
IN this bin it is provi ed that the stock shall be
assessed to the corporation. Now, sir, upon the
argument that l have been following out j very
strongly doubt VIII ther, if you assess property to
ene wrong owner, when you know who the right
owner IS, you can collect it aor not. The law has
saId that II you know the owner he must be as
sessed and ii you cannot find out who the owner is
you may assess 1t to an unkn5 ownsr. But say
that u"der the laws if yoa assess property to
poration when you know that the corporation does
not own the property, do not believe you col
lect lt-at least, have very strong doubt of it.
10 illustrate The wife has an intei est in the home
stead as declared by our statute. The law
provides that the homestead cannot be
charged or incumbered without the sigma
! lures Of the husband and the wife. The
husband has the legal title NOW, if you assess the
homestead to the wife and leave out the husband.
when the statute says property must be assessed
the owner, could you esforce that tax? Suppose
the Assessor, to-day, in my county, assesses my lot
upon which | live, by mistake-wllich | will say
happened last year. If fuse to pay that tax, or
at least take no notice of it and DO pay it, the
Collector sells the real estate to John smith, as
assessed, who does not own it. can sit by and see
that property sold and the man who gets his deed
mt me a. IL bepalica IL baa ot baan
sessed to me- it has not been charged to me.
Therefore the law points out the necessity Of reach
ing the person, and finding ou, the person who
should pay the II is the property that the
State is seeking for nor the property that the State
is intending to reach. Another that the bill
we passing now, and system Of State
taXtion is upon the person and not the prop
erty, is this: By the assessment YOU create
intended Only to reach the property, why create
personal liability under the assessment? We place
lien upon the property 1t Is very true in order to
secure the payment from the person and make him
know that he must pay it in order to relieve his
property, but also create legal liability and a
personal liability ard prove very concusively that
We are reaching the person and not the property :;
reaching the person for The benefits and the adyan
tages and the protection that he receives under the
State Government AMI under the commonwealth
Now have made these comments upon the subjecs
of assessing the property to the person, let look
at the principle OF taxing the property
We have h in our Federal and State systems es
pecially in the Federal system, to reach the pron-
erty and not the person. Now, here is great dis
tinction, and here is where exists all the confusion
upon this subject OF double taxation. Our impOst
duties, our customs dues, are made by the Federal
Government. These laws made by Congress to
reach property. such silks and VINE and a thou
sand other articles that come into the country
Now, say this, that when we levy tax upon prop
erty it affects the price Of the property. When We
levy tax upon the person it does
not affect the property. When we lay
tax upon silk or an impost duty oil
silk or wine, the who imports it
does nos pay the tax. He pays it in the first in
stance, but the whole community pays the tax upon
the prop rty in its advanced price, and the tax
affects the property, not the person So when Sem
ators talk to me about technical distinctions and
nonsensica distinctions, say these distinctions are
as broad as the atmosphere itself. Now upon this
subject Of taxing property it has been decided that
the State may tax this silk and wine otter
it is broken up into small parcels, but it
cannot tax it in its original bulk as it comes
from the foreign country. There are several
reasons for this. The Federal Government in the
first instance lays tax rp it. If the States were to
levy another upon this property they would in the
first place interfere with that power of the Federal
Government, and they would furthermore place
double tax upon the property, and the Courts say
this is unjust. Double taxation is unjust, and in
this instance it is levylng heavier contribution
upon the country--for the Federal Government to
place an mpost duty upon it, and for the State into
which il comes to place another duty upon it, The
Supreme Court of the United States, however have
made this distinction that if the property is broken
up from its original bulk, and divided, then it may
be taxed by the State. Now We have, as l stated
a while ago, a tax upon business. Now | say
that tax upon business is not upon the person; a
tax upon business is these license taxes And what
do we hayel A man who is in business pays tax
to the S ate, the amount according to the amount
sold. One man may do a business upon a street
corner and in the business is anothcr Oh the
adioinina. corner, and yet he may p1y hInsterd
tunes rUre than his neighbOr, whyT Because it Is
on the amount that he Sells | say that his paving
more than his neigh6or Is not double taxatisn be-
cause 1t is upon the business aud not UPON the
person and he makes the community pay the tax
he makes bis customers pay the tax, and the whole
country pays it, il is not the person who paws It,
So come to the original proposition that laid
down-that the tax is only double when you make
the same person pay twice iu one year upon the
same property, and unless you place heavier bur
den upon one Tor the same privilege than YOU
place upon another. The distinction is broad This
subject has been passed upon twice by our Supreme
Court think the best reasoning that we have on
this subject. They have sal that tax upon a
mortgage, taxed to one person, and tax upon the
land is not double taxation, when you place the tax
upon the person. Now, to follow out that reason
ing, what another mans taxes to me?
What do l care about the burdens YOU
may place upon him. Ihaveno right to complain ur-
less placing the burden upon him, places the burden
upon or upon the property. When YOU place
the burden upon the property you affect me, even
il the property is not mlne as in the instance |
this property is twice taxed in the same year. al
it does not affect and its price, have no right
to complain. We can all complain of the tariff :;
why? Because it affects pockets, it affects our
living it affects appetite it affects our apparel
We can dress finely coarsely, your tariff is made
We can drink lager beer or champagne ac-
cordng as your tariff is Ii ht or heavy
But when you assess horse to the Senator from
Colusa at time, and he exchanges the horse to
me, and during the assess ent year l am assessed
for the horse unless it affects the price Of the
horse he nor l have no right to complain of that
double taxation. admit that it is taxing the same
ciety, under the complicated forms of government,
this happen, and will happen as long as man is
civilized and when you attempt to get into any
other rule, when you attempt To establish any other
system you get into greater confusion and greater
complications than to follow this rule. Look at
these bills in trying to make distinctions relieving
this d that in order to prevent the assessment Of
the same property twice the same yea. You com
plclte the matter and confuse the matter The old
rule is the palmer and il were to follow u there
would be no difficulty. And | say right here that
all this confusion arises from certain interests in
civilized government attempting to escape taxation
Now, Mr. President, we have had a good deal of
talk about savings banks. This amendment is to
relieve the deposi;ors they say. In the first
place l deny that the savings banks of
these DAYS are the institutions of the
poor or the man of small means. A poor man
may place 500 or $500 or 8, 900 in savings bank
and what does he get He gets in return 81 or IS
on the Sl00 IN year. what does 1t amount to to
himl l say that it is placing accumulated capital
in the hands of few men that gives them great
financial control of the country, and as far as am
concerned am rot such an admirer OF the system
say that it Creates in the first place. fund where
men can easily borrow, and when men can easily
borrow and mortgage their homes they will do SO
and go into speculatons and bankruptcy. Tre result
is that it gives evil to the country or creates an
evil that We would not otherwise have if the poor
man, with his 500, $500 or 81 600 would keep his
money and improve his farm or do something else
with it. Now, what would be the effect under this
amen iment2 / do not wish to be driven into an
argument TO admit that these savings banks are
such splendid and benevolent institutions | deny
the proposition. And / say that when the Bank
Commissioners or anybody else say that they are
the institutions of the poor, that | do
not acceds to the truth of the remark.
The depost0r comes in here and according to the
proposed amendment to this bill you relieve him
from taxation. say that it will I've every man in
the country an incentive to place his money in q
savings bank. And what would the savings bank
do with it? Why, sir, they would build themselves
up; they would make three times more money out
of 500 than the man himself would receive from the
bank. As said before it gives them financial power
they can crush the merchant and the farmer,
and in all the business complications OF
the country they are masters Of the
situation. Not only that, it gives them political
power 1t not only places in their hands q monop
oy OF the financial and commercial business Of the
country, but 1t places in their hands grand polit
cal power. Why, in the last election it was said
that the Hbernia Bank itself controlled two thou
sand votes against the new Constitution. Do We
want TO huiid up sch institutions that they may
use such great political power in the State-such