Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1883-02-28
The New Revenue Law.

general assembly there was perhaps none
which challenged more general attention
or was considered Of greater Importance
when passed than "Col. Hooker's bill' as
it was commonly called, the bill which
now stands No. 1 of the laws passed last
session.
We have examined the bill with some
care, and have wondered that we saw few
or no comments on 1t by our state papers.
We heard the bill spoken of during the
session as one of reform, and designed
and calculated to secure the bearing by
some rich corporations of their Just pro-
portion of the taxes. which they had
previously escaped. If this is true. ii
would be we'll, if some even.handed
Justice be secured, for 1t is certain that the
poor man has as a rule borne more than
his due burden OF taxation. 1t is not
seldom that it Is our lot to stand with the
minority, and on the unpopular side, and
while we consider the law one of the
most important, it is that we believe its
effects will be mischievous, and for its
in,iduous tendencies to evil results in the
future, which we fear will be to still more
exempt property Of the wealthy from
taxation and settle the burden still more
heavily on the poor mans shoulders. We
believe the act to be natly in violation of
the spirit il not the letter of our constitu-
ton though being no lawyer only a
farmer. our opinion will probably not
carry great weight.
The right tc tax the people, and the
reason for it is conferred and explained in
article 9 of the constitution; THAT every
member of society hath right to be
protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty,
and property. and therefore is bound to
contribute bis proportion towards the
expense of that protection" etc. This is
the foundation OF all taxation, the right
given to tax the people to pay for
protection. the principle OF equal protection
to all of life, liberty, and property, and
life and property must contribute each its
share for the payment Of the expense.
That each may contribute his proportion
it seems necessary that common basis
should be taken to compute that proportion
from.
1t seems clear to US that this principle
is repeatedly lost sight Of and transgressed
in the law, and We will show as briefly as
may be why we think SO and in what
respects.
First, the basis OF assessment is different
for different classes of property. BY the
"tax law" all persons or corporations are
entitled to an Offset on their grand lists
for debts they owe Section II of the act
saws, 1.-THE listers shall deduct from the
appraised value Of such personal property
a sum equal to the excess Of
debts owing by such tax payer" ETC., ETC.,
so their real estate and net personal
property stands rs fund or list on which
to assess the taxes necessary to be levied.
Railroads. express, telegraph, telephone
companies, letc., are assessed certain per
cent on their gross receipts, an entirely
different basis Of levying the tax, and it
may be fifty per cent more or it may be
fifty per cent less.
Second, the law is unjust in that it
assesses railroads unequaly. A road
doing business of $4,000 per mile may
be doing a more profitable business, and
of course is a more valuable property in
comparison with its cost than a road
which does 5000 worth per mile, yet the
first is assessed two per cent on its gross
receipts while the last is taxed two per
cent on the first $4,000, three per cent on
all over that and under $4,000, four per
cent on all over $4,000 and under $4,000,
and five per cent on all over $4,000 Of the
gross earnings. Now the profits of a
railroad, or any other business, are by no
means certain to be in the same proper.
ton as the gross receipts, and of course
the property is of more or less value
according to Its net receipts or profits.
This seems in plain violation of contrib
uting his proportion" to the cost of
protecting life and property.
Third, insurance companies are obliged
to pay two per cent of their gross receipts,
and in the mutual companies in our state,
(and we think stock companies rs we'll J
this burden must BIZ added to their
assessments laid on to the insured, which
brings so much more burden on those
already taxed. Again certain classes of
property (churches for one CLASSY are by
law exempt from taxation, and by this
tax on insurance they are indirectly taxed.
and what cannot be done by law dtrecty|
should not be done indirectly. 1t is unjust
in that il allows insurance companies to
deduct from their gross receipts certain
expenses, dividends to policy holders"
etc., while a railroad may be compelled
to pay five per cent, whose stockholders
may have never had dividend, and on
property which, 80 far, has been practi-
oally of no value to them.
1t is unjust in that it has still another
basis of assessment for express and
telegraph companies, charging them three
per cent, while charging telephone com.
panies the same, al ows them to deduct
from that such sums as they pay telegraph
companies.
This law is no new thing in legislation.
New Hampshire had one quite similar
except that their law was an act to tax or
license. Under this law case was tried,
and the opinion of the supreme court was
against the constitutionality of the law.
Judge Doe gave an exhaustive opinion
in the case in which he seems to reach
common sense, and make the great
principles of taxation 80 clear that
wayfaring man though a-legislator
might understand them. He says, eff
the practical operation and effect of an
assessment authorized by an act of the