Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1882-11-22
The Revenue Bill.

u. 39l, the revenue bill reported by the ways |
and means committee, came up, on its third read.
log at eleven O'Clock yesterday forenoon. Colonel
Hooker for the committee proposed various
amendments, some In form merely, and others in |
substance, which were adopted. Mr.. Childs OF
and unconstitutional, and claimed that the great
revenue TO be derived from II existed only In the |
brilliant imagination OF the magnificent chair
man OF the magnificent ways and means COM |
mittee." Mr. Roberts Of Burlington moved to |
amend the bill by deductlng the death policies |
paid by life insurance companies from the gross |
receipts before computing the tax and proceeded |
10 argue In favor OF his motion at some length |
At the close Of his speech an adjournment was
had.
In the afternoon the debate was resumed. Mr..
Roberts inquired whether there was state In
the Union which taxed home life insurance COM
panies as this did two per cent on the gross re-
ceipts one half per cent the surplus reserve and
also taxed them on their stock and real estate Col
Hooker said that the law In different states was
different. In some states they taxed the reserve.
The reserve OF the National Life OF Montpelier
was S2,O00,0Oo, and n tax on that, such az other
states laid, would be more severe than the tax
proposed In the bill. The committee had re-
Trained from taxing this reserve In accordance
with the suggestions OF the officers OF the life in
surance companies. Mr.. Roberts amendment
was then voted down. Speaker Martin spoke in
favor OF the bill and had the clerk read extracts
from Judge Powers opinion In the Bennington
bond cases, 10 which It is laid down that all
power OF taxation proceeds from the people He
also had the clerk read article Of the consiitu-
ton, which relates to taxation, and argued that
there was nothing in the constitution which dis
tingnished between equal and unequal taxation.
In whose hands then was that power OF distinc
ton left9 The people; and what the people did
by their representatives the courts would not hold
=, be invalid on account OF the constitution OF
Vermont. Did the bill conflict with the provi-
sions OF the Federal constitution In regard to
regulating interstate commerce He cited cases
decided by the United States supreme court,
IN tha nf fhn Dali
company against the State OF Pennsylvanis, In
which tax very like the tax proposed In the bill
was held to be constitutional Mr. Martin then
described the pulling and hauling between the
towns and counties on account OF the pres ent sys
tenn OF raising state taxes, the ridiculous spec
tacles at the sessions Of the county and state
equalizing boards, the wire-pulliDg and decep-
ton, which made the whole thing a sham One
OF the objections made to the bill was that II
taxed the people True What system Of taxation
did not2 But now, since other states had the
system proposed in the bill, wherever our produce
crossed the state line we began 10 contribute to
the support Of that sister state II we adopted II
these citizens would have to help support us, and
reciprocity In taxation would ensue. As to the
burden which the proposed taxation might i'm
pose we could safely trust the committee that
II was not too great. The committee had studied
the subject thoroughly, and doubtless knew what
they were about, He concluded by arguing
that those companies who enjoyed In peculiar
way the protection Of our courts, our police and
our laws, should contribute at least their Just
share to the support OF government Mr. Wells
OF Cranky made his usual charac teristic style OF
speech and was opposed to taxing mutual fnsur-
ance companies as their notes were good for moth
Ing, and did not represent any funds, but were
simply a basis on which to base assessments.
He made some sharp hits at the constitutional
lawyers. Mr.. Sheridan Of Hgbgate favored the
bill. Mr.. Wing Of Montpelier said that the COM
mittee was substantially unanimous In its views
upon the bill But the bill should stand or fall
upon its own merits, and not upon any. recon-
mendation OF the committee. II lawyers had told
the gentleman from Bennington that the bill was
unconstitutional, let him say in what respect
The committee had endeavored to go to the bot
tom OF every question, and had depended upon
the decisions OF the supreme court Of the United
States as to the consitutionality Of the measures
Whenever they had found decision TO the point
they had considered that the end Of the matter.
They knew Of no higher court. What was the
support OF government, and for that purpose
they had attempted to assess a tax upon certain
corporations which had hitherto paid little or no
tax. In relation to the taxation of railroads, the
United States Supreme court had said that a tax
| on gross receipts from business transacted In the
state was constitutional; and there was GER
tainly nothing in the state constitution that pro-
hihited 1t. The principle was not different in re-
lation to taxing insurance companies, telegraph,
express or any other companies. 1t might be
debatabe ground whether insurance companies
should be taxed or not. He would not go into that
He would only say that these companies asked the
VI tib stAtf, courts ana laws,
they had hitherto paid nothing. Ought they not
to contribute something towards supporting gov
ernmentP AZ the gentleman from Irasburgh had
said, the dear people" paid all taxes In the
end But 1t was believed that by paying the
state tax in this way, it would be so impercepti-
bic that 1t would not be felt Mr. Wing referred
to the statements Of Mr Childs, last Saturday in
regard to the National Life Insurance Company
and said that Mr. Childs' statements were untrust-
worthy, and 1t was unnecessary for Mr. Childs to
state that his statements were unauthorized BY
that company. They certainly were unauthor-
lied. He hoped that the members OF the legsla.
ture would pay no attention to them whatever
They were not In accordance with the facts The
Mutual fire insurance companies were legally
liable TO a tax well as the life He then re-
ferred to Mr.. Childs' statement that the taxes on
telegraph, telephone and express companies were
| unequal and therefore unconstitutional, and said
that Mr.. Childs made statements but gave no
reasons for them; produced no authorities. He
referred TO the decision of tho supreme ~
New Hampshire In the express company tax case,
and explained the exact difference between our
constitution and that. In New Hampshire the
constitution said all taxes must be proportonate,
that IL, proportional to some other kind of prop
erty, while tax upon gross receipts Is not There
was no Limitation Of the kind In our constitution.
Our constitution left all questions as to manner OF
levying taxes open, and they all rested within the
discretion of the legislature. The sole question
about the kind OF taxation proposed In the bill
was whether 1t was matter OF public policy. He
believed 1t was. He would not trouble the clerk
to read authorities for nothing had yet been pro.
duced to controvert the opening statement OF
Colonel Hooker, the chairman OF the committee.
| As to equal taxation, about which Mr. Childs had
nrated, there was and could be no such thing,
This bill was new departure in the taxation
policy OF the state 1t was for the legislature to
| say whether 1t would conduce to the public good.
The committee bad no desire for the passage of
| the bill simply as a bill. He believed 1t would
commend itself to the legislature, as 1t did to
the committee, as a measure which would lift
| the burden OF taxation somewhat from the
| people and make 1t easier for them to sustain
| the load, Mr. Plumley Of Mortified followed
| and took up that portion Of the argument In re-
gard to equalization boards He favored the
| abOlishing OF the boards and believed this bill
was the most feasible method Of getting rid Of
| the frauds which creep In through these conven-
tons. He believed the bill thoroughly consttu-
tional, and in no wise an utopian scheme. Mr..
Noble Of St. Adams called for the reading OF sec
tion AZ Of the bill, repeating the exemption clause
Of charters Of corporations. He moved that 1t be
conflicts with this BILL" which was adopted.
| Mr.. Hooker offered some further amendments to
the phraseology, which were adopted. Mr.. Abel
OF West Haven said he had no sympathy for the
the tax should come ont Of them, but he thought
| 1t would come out OF the people The people
would object to unreasonable appropriations
He had no fears that there was anything In this
bill unconstitutional Our constitution was pecu-
liar, and hardly any other constitution resembled
| It, He called attention to the case against the
state treasurer, which went to the supreme court
Of the United States, in which by a divided court
| a law was declared unconstitutional where stock
| OF non-residents was taxed In different way
| from that OF residents but that case did not re-
| semble this. Section 81 provides that II there
| should be a deficit, then the tar should be
spportioned around among the different towns
| per capita, and he objected to the bill on
| this account. Sometime he thought there
would be deficit and then this bill would do
rank Injustice to many Of the towns, and
on this ground he could not support the bill.
Colonel Hooker answered the objection OF Mr..
Abel by saying that the tax on savings banks,
round houses and machine shops Of the railroads
was distributed round among the smaller
| towns The committee designed that this
should be done. Colonel Hooker then reviewed
| the general purposes Of the bill and eulogized
| them. He believed the bill, II It became law,
would be OF the greatest benefit to the state,
as much so as the great law Of 1880 which
people criticised when 1t was passed. but which
| now was the most popular law ever enacted,
Judge Thompson demanded the yeas and nays.
| They were called, and the bill was passed by
vote OF one hundred ninety-two yeas to twenty
| nays
". LI IL.