News and citizen. [volume] (Morrisville, Vt. ;) 1881-current, 1883-02-22
The ew Laws.

ouire of some one that does under
stand it. First, was it not an unusual
way to lay 4 specific tax on property
to paw general expenses. Ii the prin-
ciple is correct, may we not carry it
further and lay 4 specific tax on other
property and persons.
Take the laboring man why not
say the first dollar that he earus he
shall pay Two cents INTO the treasury ;
the second dollar three cents, the
Thrill four cents, etc?
Then the merchant, and say the
first thousand dollars he receives he
shall pay twenty dollars into the
treasury; the second thousand, thirty
dollars; the third thousand, forty
dollars, etc. But suppose we should
will not they add the tax to cost OF
goods, and in the end will not the
consumer pay the tax, and will it not
he the Same with the corporations
We NAV as we'll remember theirs IS 4
colossal wealth concentrated i'll q
few hands they can meet III secret
concIave and adopt means 10 an end.
be that means what it may.
Turn to sec. 81, that says 'when
the General Assembly assesses q
State or county tax the amount PEI
cdpitu shall be stated in the act as
srssing such tax" But what assem-
bly, were they making law for, them
selves or some other assembly? Fol-
in No. 126, they vote Il tax of ten
cents, but assess on tie list of polls
and ratabIe estate; and in Sec. Bird
of this act, say that Sec. 81 Of Act
No. l shall not apply, but do not re-
scind the Get in regard to the county
Judges laying 4 tax on the county.
Well, it looked to me that Il pen
capita tax would be an unjust tax tC
the poorer towns, and l went to tigur-
ing some, and if figures don't lie, was
somewhat surprised at the result.
The first thing | wanted TO know was,
what is the wealth OF the whole State
per capita; found it to he SJ04
(fractions omitted). 1t seemed 10 ml
that all towns that had The S5O4 wcuid
come out even, while those that had
more per capita would he the gamers.
and those tnat had less would lose,
and it would be unjust to them.
Below will be found the wealth pc,
capita Of the counties and some OF the
larger towns, and Lamuille county in
full Addison $3.50; BENNINGTON.
S4O3 Caledonia, S5U5; Essex. 500
Grand Isle, Sill; Orange, S470
Orleans, 1926 Rutland, S62S; Wash
ington, 500 Windham, SIP Wind
sOr, SjI6j Chittenden, Sl33 Frank
lin, S46S; LamoiIIe, S429.
Wealth of some Of the towns pen
capita st. Johnsbury, 500, Bur
lington, S6O7, Rutland, 1928, St. AL
bans, S62l, Swanton, S642, Sheldon
$3.50, Fairfield, 1888, Grand Isle,
s4G3, Derby. 1914, Bridport, $1,000,
Middebury, SGla, st. George, 500,
Charlotte, 500, Randolph, S572,
Wallingfor'l, Sl27Z, Montpelier, S84 3,
Newbnry, sos, Fairfax, 1889.
Wealth of towns per copita in La
noble County :-Belvidere, S243,
Cambridge, SG49, Eden, S276, FL
more, So 9, Hyde Park. $685., Holm
son, S427, Morristown. S4l9, Stowe.
sjO7, WaterviIle, 1921, Wolcou,
1926.
Now suppose the State should as
sess a tax of one dollar per capita
that would raise 1882, 26G; Cam,
bridge having 1870 inhabitants, wouhl
have $3.50 Ia raise on their list
which would he about | , cents on the
dollar; WaterviIIe would have to
raise about 81 cents, while Belvidere
would have TO cast theirs at Al cents
on HE dollar.
] have not seen the Legislative
JournGi, but would like to know how
their representatives voted. There is
but two towns in the county that
would not be losers by the per capita
plan, Stowe would have three dol
lars per capita that would not he tax
ed, while Cambridge would have one
hundred and fOrty-five dollars not
taxed, tha: is if l am correct; per-
haps YOU will discover that am not
Now at once arises the question.
why did not the Legislature let the
law take effect on the first opportuni-
ty il they had any confidence in their
own work. 1t creates grounds for the
suspicion that they had doubts about
Act No. l standing the test of the
supreme court.
But if after the 10 per cent on the
grand Est is paid into the treasury,
is that the last call OH the list by the
State. Why not repeal all law on
subject and let each town take ill.,
own course III regard to raising means
to detray their current expenses and
the county per capita tax.
But rs long rs majority of the
towns are wronged by per capita
tax, it is strange how it could get Il
vote, one has to think that
some must have voted unwlin.Iy. Ii
leaves only one other alternative
You will remember perhaps, that in
the last presidential campaign the
Democrats charged that Republican
legislation was calculated To make the
itch richer and the poor poorer, and
things seem To- tend that way, and |
propose to take up that subject and
review some of the doings Of the leg
lSlalurc of 1890 and 1882 OBSERVER