Daily Republican., 1881-04-06
FRAUD ABLY DENOUN NEED.
BRADFORD ON THE INIQuITOVS
ASSESSMENT LAWS.
An n"ucccsalUl bourbon Effort to
Ga. Free Spccrh-Ghe Assess-
InrnI BiIl Killed M Dover
by a Party Vote.

Special Correspondence Of th. EErt mIrtN,
DOVER. Auril i.--1'hr Democrats
went fairly and suuarcly ON record to-
day in favor uf the diSGrac"tUI aud dis
honest assessment laws OF Delaware.
The House Erlisrd Statutes Committee
this afternoon reported Mr.. Bradford $
bill to amend The law for tax levy ana
collection without recommendation and
Mr.. tahall'S motion I" iHd"Iiui'rly
postpurr WAS carried by q strict party
vote with the exception "i \. G. Will
liam>. who voted with III" Republicans.
When thi>. motion was made Mr.,
bradford took lir floor and commenced
tu speak in favor nt th" bill. 7" shut
of d"hHtr DR.. ToruliuSon said thc
motion wa~ not drhatablr Mr.. brad
ford r"tort'd that II wg.% diSrort"o"F To
interrupt gentleman vii" had tho
floor. Then pr. 'rnmNiuHrn rall"d him
tu or,'r. The chair decided ;laj uudrl
the rules Of The House Mr.. Bradford
was in order This decision Was ap.
pc;tlrd from and the chair was sustain
ed. MI Irad!url then proceeded IL
discuss the measure. saving
ME-. ERAnfonu'S SPEECH.
MIR. Speaker. deeply impressed
with the importance Of tn" proposed
IIeasur" should. Iconc"iN", fail in my
duty TO- ny constituents should | omit
to present clearly and fully th' Consid-
rrationS which demand, in my iuhE-
mCnt. the passage of This bill The
pending bill relates tOa very important
subject matter. II concerns the ruli,r-
tiou OF the revenue Of The people of this
state and also concerns thu ri-h' Of cit
liens Of this state TO vote.
The pruding bill is intended and. !
believe, is calGtlatcd toobViatc rh""vils
Of thr act of 1873. to which II is amcnd-
atory These evils IN brief are princi-
pally three.
First, the SubQitution of posted no
ticcS. by the collector Of taxes, n his
readiness to receive he same Al times
and places therein mentioned, in lien OF
Il personal demand by him upon the
taxable iu. the p2y iHenr OF hi. taN.
Second, the dropping of III" nHm"S Of
ueinQurmtS from the assessment lists
for period Of twelve months, thereby
rendering it impossible for the taxpayer
to pay lii taN during the Surr"diug
year. and
Third, th" option whirh undrr thc
law of l%1@ T., practically given 10 the
collectors Dp return thuS" VII" hav"
failed t. pay their taxes ~ dr!inGucntS
or not at his own pleasure"
The bill now pending bri"r" this
tnu>r, proposes 10 correct those evils
by. first, requiring It persona! demand
upon the taxable for tn" paFm"nt "t his
taN. il Il" can be found: second, hN re-
pealiny ,hc provision which authorizes
the dropping oith" nam" of the dclin-
uurUt from tho assessment lists, for the
period Of twc!N" months, and third, by
requiring the collector, hctWr" any
taxpayer i~ allowed aS delinquent, 10
make affidavit 10 demand upon the
taxable for payment "f the same or
to a search for III" taxable and
inability to lind him.
The further merits of the pending
bill are two fold. First, il requires the
collector OF taxes, at any time before n
taN is actually allowed aS dclinuuc TO
receive and receipt tor the same. Sec
ond, it require" tax receipts of such
character ~ will scyvc rs guard
:: against fraud and such cuirirS to b."
made upon the Subs Of the tax receipt
book H. will best SuhScrVC the sam" par
pose.
Now sir. Nirwirg this question in
the abstract, before proceeding t0 dis
CuSs the practical operations Of the Act
pi 1873, what tan be said in defence Of
She principles Of that Act" VIII it not
BE- tuund-must il not b. found. upon
TO be- utterly false, utterly
absurd, utterly illogical" Consider, il
vou please, the provisions which SubSti-
tutc III" posting oi notices by the col
lcrtUr in lieu Of demand upon The
taxable for the payment OF his ;0N.
lu considering this matter, upon
principle and "bstrartly, we must trra;
the public, the county, a. y creditor
having just demand against at;;XahIC.
Is II not utterly absurd th2t n" crcdi-
tor. having II just demand capable OF
being enforced. should satisfy himself
with merely giving notice TO his debtor
bt his readiness to- receive IHS mont in
stead Of preceding in accordance with
law TO make demand upon the debtor
and. in "oSr Of refusal, to cntuI,c the
demand by due process Of law"
The old law, under which our fathers
lived. was not content with IN" posting
't notices in lieu Of making demand
upon the taxable Tor the payment Of his
tan. That law provided that il the
should not be able 10 lind per-
>"nai property Of the taxable Eufiicar;
10 pay his tan and such person should
fail ia pay within ten days after de-
'nand, il should b. lawful for the col
ector 90 take and impriSon his boIy |
and. under that law. we rliycd from 1871,
until 1873 and now it. is proposed, in
he pending bill merely 10 restore the
I'D Inv in that respect and, for The pur-
no>r of inSuring the collection Of public
revenues, TO require the collector Of taxes,
n addition TO the posting OF notices, 10
make the demand upon the taxable for
he money which he owes 20 the public.
Consider further tor Il moncnt thar
lOrtion ut rhc a"t Of 1873 which permits
he dropping Of names OF dclinQucntS
rom lists fora period Of t. months. Can
his h' justified 2 Is there any pfirci-
iIr at rnlnnoI s"rls", any principle
which will commend itself ia ihr .iudg-
aeAi Of iair-mirdcd, reasonable and
TnSihl" men, u!Ua which that provi-
ZION can he defended q?
Consider il in the abstract still
rrating the county AZ the taxable, hay
nG Il just claim against the taxable for
h" anount of his tax. How utterly
ibSur,l IT is, might say--how utterly
diotir il iS--that, because the debtor re-
uses 10 pay n Just demand due to the
'rcditor, the creditor should Voluntarily
release him from the payment Of
mother just demand 20 an equal
amount during the succeeding year,
Again, is itnot utterly iniquitouS and
to reward the taxable, who
Iails to perform his duty by the pay-
uent Of his taN, by eXempting him
rom his share Of the common burden
turing the succeeding year? Is there
my principle Of Justice, expedienry or
common sense upon which such a prac-
lice can he defended ? Bot again, sir.
is il not equally iniquitots 20 punish