Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-02-26

owing by such person, firm or corporation to bon
residents oi TINS State or to firms or corporation
| doing business in this State"
That is what he must report-stocls issued b,
corporations Then you have the credits.
PROPERTY MUST BE TAXED
The gentleman from Solano drew a vivid and az
| fecting picture Of man who sits down with hi
S50O,OC0 IN bonds and stoeks, and assumes that ",
| are not going to assess them. But we are. Such ;
condition OF things, under our bill is impossible
| But know what the gentleman had IN his mind
He had in his mind of his own friends and hert
he Is In Bill No 4O4 find this " The term credit.
means those unsecured debts owing to persons as
sessed by bona fde residents OF this State" That i.
what the term credits means they interpret it
That is to say, that all this sboated monopost thi.
| boated moneybags has to do if he wishes to 90 un
taxed. is to say to the Assessor "My money is al
| loaned in Virginia City" Now we propose no sucf
thing that. All he has to do is to say, 81 hav,
no money loaned to residents Of California and ht
goes scot free. Unde- that b you could not reael
him. Under Bill No. 403 1t is not possible for
dollar of property in California to escape taxation
| It. says:
"The term personal property includes everything
which is subject to ownership having pecuniary
value" What do you want than that? W.
Say everything in the State shall be taxed that i,
subject to owr ershlp and has any value. Do The
people of California
WANT ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT?
Thegentamsn last night spoke about mortgage:
being taxed. suppose the gentleman Knows, it i,
not necessary me 70 tel MN, tflat mai
goes it does not make any difference whether We
acknowledges or not They are q mere interest in
the property. If mortgages 60 on the assessment
roll they come off OF the real estate, and it make;
ditferenc@ TO the treasury. 1t makes not one 10;
or little of difference. II l have a home worth
81 Geo a..l 3. is llrtgeed for $500 the assessmen
will stand May-interest in home, $500; Money
Bags-iEterest in home, $500
| Bill No. 403 taxes stocks in the hands of the
holder, provi ed the property which the stock rep
! resents does not appear upon the assessment roll
and if it do the stock ought not to appear there
Ii YOU assess the stock TO the corporation the money
comes out Of the share holders. Where else could
it come from? Don't the individual owners fave to
| pay. Can there be any doubt of that? Have the
corporations some way 10 coin money that the peO-
| pie know nothing about? When the corporation is
assessed at SIC, 90, who pays it? Why the stock.
holders: Having paid It once, if you go TO the in
dlvidual stock holders and assess them a ain,
ISN'T THAT DOUBLE TAXATION?
say, first, sou canno: assess the capital stock
because it has no existence because, when YOU
do assess it aud take it in execution, you have
! nothing. 1t has no value. | say if you do assess
it, the corporations will slip through your fingers
! The proper way to do is to assess everything the
corporation has in sight. And then if the stock IL
the hands OF the members is worth more than the
capital stock of the company, assess them for il.
| Now, for moment will leave this question anG
consider that of the banks for this is the important
! question. When the present organic law was undel
discussion, it was at one time well nigh settled that
/ "
tion of double taxation. know myself how it was
in the city where live And all that saved it from
condemnation at the hands Of the people was the
gigantic lab0rs of the San Francisco Chronicle il
affirm ne early and late that il impossible that
there could be double taxation, together with the
advocacy 6f Volney (. Howard and some other dis
( nguished gentlemen / was myself fearful that il
might be tortured into an Endorsement OF
double taxation. | did not hesitate to say
SO on the public platform. And 1 was met
| by the distinct and emphatic ;.vowal by the San
Francisco Chr0aicle, Nolney Z. Howard and others
that it did not mean double taxation, and that
double taxation was impossible. And say to you
gentlemen that you stand
PLEDGED TO TIE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA,
To see that there is double taxation In the city
where l live had it not been for these uraGc,s
the Constitution would not have received 5000
votes. The poor are willing TO be taxed once,
the rich are unwilling TO be taxed at all. What |
want is to to it that the poor man is taxed only
once, and that the rich is also once taxed The
San Francisco Chronicle said during that campaign
"Now the Legislature may tax bank deposits in
either of two ways. 1t may tax them to the indi.
vidua depositors separately, to the banks col.
lecvely which simply agents for the deposiors.
They property having value, and certainly
should pay taxes but they cannot be taxed both 10
the banks and to the depositoIs. Why? Because
that would be taxing the property at twice its
value, and not in proportion to its value. 1t would
be lust like taxing gas stock to the individual shai
holders and again to the poration OF like taxing
I
owner 1t would be unequal, unjust, ridiculous
and clearly unconstitutional. The natural way To
do would DE to tax the deposits in the banks al,d
not tax the depOsitors Individually" Now il
there is anywhere an authority upon the
Constitution, it IS the San Francisco ChroHi-
c!e. The gentlemen from Napa and Solauo
| say it IS right TO tax this money twice. The
! Chronicle thcn said it would be unequal unjust
Tidicu Gus and cle}rly UEoons ituti nal Tie sumo
question had been previously discussed by Nolney
r. Howard. He said . They raise false issue
and clamor, by alleging that the Constitution, Is
proposed II taxing crGjlts, imposes, double taxa
tion. They ignore the fact that the Constitution
declares that all property in the State shall be
taxed in proportion to its value TO be scertained
according to law and to II AXE assurance doubly
sure provides State and County PoardJ of Equali-
ZatOn, whose duty it shall be to equaliZe the yalu.
alton OF the taxable property Of the several c0uu-
ties in the Slate for the purposes Of taxation, aud
also that the Board is authorized and empowered
to increase or lower the entire assessment roll or
any assessment OF property cOnt8iEed therein, so
to equaliZe the assessment Of property contained
in said assessment roll. 1t is therefore clear that
double taxation IS impossible hereafter if the
new Constitution shall be adopted. First.
Under this provision, if property should be
dOubly taxed it Wot Id not be according to the
value, and II 1t appears on the face Of the assess
ment it. would be void, and the Court would SO de
clare; second, if it was so assessed it would be the
sworn duty of the Board OF Equalization to reduce
il TO 4 single valuation If mau deposits money
in a savings bank, whether loaned or not, it could
ne taxed bUC once, whether taxed TO t0e QepGsJDr
the bank, and whether taxed the money de-
posted or on the loan. 1t is absurd to say there
gould be one tax on the pass book and another on
the money, whether loaned or not But the gen
tlemen here say that these poor people should be
taxed twice. What business have they to put
money in the bank! They should draw it out and
spend itdike men, and then they won't be take at
all We have been told that would be false to
oaths if fell to impose this double taxation
Ii the gentleman feels that he would be
false to his oath he may vote that way, but
he shall not stand between my con; Cience and my
God | Will not do n thing like this. Before viii
vote aye, may my tongUe wither in my mouth. |
will tell you where the trouble lies 1t lies in the
unequal taxation Of lands. | read from the report
Of the Controller Farming land in Butte county
last year was assessed at So an acre. Can ANYBODY
go there and buy it for $50? Land in Colusa county
at SO an acre. Why not SIS Why rot $40 as the
land is in Napa county? Is not Colusa county as
rich n pa county! WHY'S Colusa assessed at $40
and Napa at S20I Fresno county 50 10? That is
all. That's what's the matter. Let Fresno, Colusa
Butte, aud all other Counties, up TO the mark.
When they do we will see another sort of assess
ment roll. Kern county assessed at 50 so. Los An
geles county at SO The land % the orange and
pomegranite, and the lemon, the glory and the de.
light of California and of the world, going for $40 an
an acre. 1t won't do. Ii this continues you will
have 10 assess stocks tour times Marin IS an acre
Napa $50, Santa Clara $50 an acre. Cod bless her.
Fifty dollars acre Thatis up somewheres near.
expect it would not be sold for less than 500, but
1t Is put $50 while the others down at 81 So
Sutter 50, Solano Sl5, and the gentleman from
Solano wants to assess sto ks three times
Mr. LEAcI-There is large amount of tule land
What is that worth!
Mr.. MAY-Some gentlemen told me theirs was
worth 500 Some of these lands mort
gagged at $40 to the banks, and worth so $50
Mertgaged at $40 and ass ssed at g. And the eo-
quent gentleman from Napa would bring tears to
your eyes because some banks have not pail their
taxes The gentleman has been banker and prob
ably knows what he is talking about. But | say if
they have gone untaxed we will tax them now.
That is what bill No. 403 provides for Bill No. 40i
proposes to tax the depositor and then go TO the
bank and tax the money again. wish to say, in
conclusion, that in my heart Of hearts l have
no wish except to serve the people Of California and
the whole people. Bill No. 403, SO far from being
an evasion of the Constitution is in strict conform
ity yith that instrument. do not believe the peo-
PIE intended double taxation Ii this Assembly
wishes for double taxation let them vote for Bill
No. 404. That is a matter between you and your
God. For one, will not do it.
Messrs. BEsSEr-, Cook, MAYBELI, DEL VALE and
DuBRUTz spoke in favor of Bill No. 404 while Mr..
TYLER advocated Bill No. 403.
At o'clock the House adjourned.