The weekly Union times. [volume] (Union C.H., South Carolina) 1871-1894, 1883-07-06

afE)<u&1 of municipal taxes, which shall be
1eI3ed and collected u?rn the property or
Ss i<l employed or invested directly in
st manufactures or enterprises; not in.
6lfsIog herein the tax levied upon the land
~ which the factories may be erected"
3fthis act is not an evasion Of the Con
sti{ttion, we would like for the friends Of
tli:sI Measure to lct us know what would, in
tisS9 opinion, cvustitute an evasion. IF the
prol crties mentioned in this subdivision con-
trilfto uotaing to the sup po." of the gov.
orn6fht, why may not every species OF
pro rty be exempted by q like evasion Of
tsonslituiian. and the whole burden of
taxation be imposed upon labor d. thcss
pets ofthe State, protected as they are sin
the enjoymcnt Of life, liberty and proper
ty, contribute their share to the expense
Of their protection ?" Most, if not all, of
them are regularly Incorporated companies.
Arethey taxed as,required byS. 2. Art.
XTtof the Constitution Is their exemp,
tioa provided for in the Constitution Did
the. ffamers of the Constitution, whoever
they were, imagine that its plain require.
niehts would be made the subject of un-
blushing evasion, by those who were sworn
to observe it {? BY what right, legal or
mosal, shall money making corporations bo
:sssps favored by y.the Legislature ? In gen.
erat teruis> thssQnly answer VIC have seen
is this BY ttdssxsnapxps these mauuiac>
turing interests froRdtssst ,on; capital from
abroad is induced to seek investment in
them, aud the value of ncighborihg prop
erty is enhanced.
This conclusion assumes premise that
we are not prepared to admit. To attribute
the prosperity of manufactures in this State
to the enactment, Of this law, is equivalent
to saying that the superior climate, the
splendid waterpower, the proximity of the
cotton mills, aud the large profits which
experience has shown may bo realized, has
no controlling influence that trifiiug ex-
emption from about 8 mills tax of uncertain
duration, will induce investments of large
sums ofmoney in untried enterpri es. Will
auy practical busin ,ss man affirm that he was
induced to put his money in any Of these
Ventures by the trifling consideration that
he exempt from tax Of 8 mills
for 10 years ? Is it reasonable to suppose
that single spindle has ever been added
to single mill by consideration, at once
so triting and uncertain Ever. invcs-
tor knows that this law is liable at any time
to be repealed, or declared unconstitutional
and void by the courts, and would there
fore require more certain and substantial
basis far his confidence, when he parted with
his capital. If he could be shown that
there was money in the business fair
profit to be realized on his investment, over
and above this capricious exemption, he
might chuckle over the folly of people,
who would thus necdlessly contribute to
his income, without the hope Of compcnsa
ton, but he would laugh to scorn p.opo.
sition to invest with no higher inducement
tban this tax exemption affords.
The cotton. mill statistics of this State,
show that their profits amount to from Is
to Il yer cent. upon the capital. Is not
this sufficient induccment for investment
without the 8 mills exemption w: at
other business pays so well? If none, why
protect the most profitable business at the
expense Of the less profitable
But it is said that the establishment of
factories adds to the value of other property
in the vicinity. If this be true, it only in
creases the burden Of those who are SO un
fortunate as to own this other property
The productive capacity of such property is
not increased. and therefore its increased
market value only increases the onus oftax.
alton imposed on the owner. If it shal!
be answered that the exemption will cease
at the expiration Of ten years, and then a
large amount will be added to the taxable
property, and thus reduce the general rate, ,
we reply, that if this be true, it furnishes
no reason why suci, property shall not pay
its tax during tie ten years, unless it can be
shown that the excmptinn produced the
property. But, II am rightly informed
the exemption, as applied to cotton factories,
is practically perpetual. Machinery for the
manufacture Of cotton, am told, usually
wears out in less than ten years, or is re-
placed by new inventions, and thus there IS