The Sunday tatler and Jersey City express. (Jersey City, N.J.) 1883-1886, 1886-07-25
0ONFISCATION THAT'S ALL (!
SHOULD JERSEY CITY ACCEPT THE
MARTIN TAX ACRE

SHOULD JERSEY CITY ACCEPT THE
MARTIN TAX ACTs
Passed by False Pretences in she Legisln-
Inture, IL Crashes the Taxpayer, with
out Bringing Wealth to the City Treas
ury-The Fullest Information as to Its
Workings in the Cities Where IL is
BEING Tried.
The resolution adopted by the Board of
Finance, the other evening, requesting the
Board of Aldermen to take steps looking
to the acceptance for this city of the Mar
tin Tax Act, as it is known. las aroused
speculation among property owners
throughout the city as to the acceptability
of the act. The resolution of the Board
of the Board of Finance does not commit
the Board on the subject by any means. 1t
was, as we understand it, merely pro
forsna declaration that opens discussion
upon the subject. The Board of Alder
1aen must under the Act take the iniiiatory
steps. If the Aldermen approve it, it
must go to the Board of Finance for
serious discussion. and after that receive
the approval of the Mayor. If all these
consent, Corporation Counsel Blair will
have to make application to the
Circuit Court for the appointment of a
commission to reassess the amount for
which settlements may be made for arreara-
ges. These reassessneDts are to be repor-
ted by the Commissioners to the Court,
for approval +; and if the amounts reasses-
sed are not paid, six months afterwards,
the property of the delinquent may be
sold, and his title taken away from him.
The system of cut-throat seizure the act
suggests met with little favor among the
members of the two Houses that passed it
last winter. and Goveonor Albeit positive
" refused to approve it. Some of the Sena-
tors refused point blank to vote fer it on
the ground that it would take from many
poor tax payers, whom the want of work or
other necessity may have prevented from
paving their taxes, the little homesteads to
the purchase of which the hard earned
savings of years may have been applied,
and even the votes that were given to it
were secured upon the plea that it was the
only solution of the financial difficulties
that threaten the bankrupt City of
Elizabeth, and. with the tacit I'M
Outstanding that it would not be suita-
BILE for operation elsewhere. 1t
has since been accepted by Elizabeth
City and the Commissioners have been ap-
pointed under it. Even there it is found
to be inadequate to the exlgencies of the
situation; and City Attorney Frank Bergen
was reported to have advised meeting
the other evening that it cannot be en-
forced there. The City of Newark has ac-
cepted it; but the Commissioners have
not done enough under it as yet, to
Al Hath fo ohlo
for use there or not. The Paterson Coun-
ell decided to try it.; but before appliea-
ton had been made to the courts, found
Weaknesses in the act that decided that
body to retrace its steps, and the Council
has reconsidered it's resolution of approval
and directed the City Attorney to refrain
from going to the Court.
In the light of these precedents, the
question as to whether the act should be
enforced here is one that should be de-
cidcd with the greatest of care. The step
should not be taken in the dark; and with
its usual habit of putting before its readers
the fullest possible informstion on all sub
iects that concern the interests of the city
deeply, the TATTLER has instructed its re-
porters to find out what is known about
the act in other places.
THE ACT A FALSE PRErENoE.
In .he making of the enquiries the re-
porter went naturally to Elizabeth for
this first information. He had not been
there five minutes before he learned that
the act is the outgrowth of false pre-
tence. When 1t was under discussion in
tho Legislature last winter, its passage was
urged on the ground that it was the exact
reproduction Of an act that had been en-
forced in Brooklyn with beneficial results.
Enquiry made yesterday shows this to be
utterly false The benefcent and effect
i've feature of the Brooklyn act is entirely
eliminated from this one. When the
Brooklyn act was presented to the New
York Legislature it was seen at once that
the summary enforcement of collections
might work confscations of property that
was under tax liens that could not be
promptly met, and a provision was in
serted giving the man who had put his
spare pennies, representing oftentlmes
privation, into his little homestead, an sp-
portunity to save it from confscation.
This provision was to the effect that
properly owner might, on the payment into
the City Treasury of sixty per cent of its
tax value, be given q clean receipt for all
arrearages; and, that the act might not
bear GENEROUSLY upon the taxpayer, he was
given time to make his payments. Many
Of the smaller holders in Brooklyn made
their settlements under this benefcent
provision of an otherwise memorable law,
and the large pecuniary returns Brooklyn
realized from the enforcement of the act
were directly due to it. This clause,
which makes generous consideration for
( the honest but poor taxpayer is nowhere
in the Martin act. The only part of the
Brooklyn act that is embodied in it is the
inexorable con6scation feature that takes
the mans property irreyocably from him
the moment he finds it impossible to pay
up his dues. In Elizabeth, the reporter
was told by City Comptroller Carlin, much
of the property on the outskirts of the city
is bIanketed to many times its value by as
sessment after assessment, and as the ac-
tual value of the property ia but trifie of