New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-05-03
THE RRUNDAGE BILL

David "A. Wells has written letter strongly
opposing the passage of the Brundage Tax bill
MIR. Wells was at the head Of the Commission to
revise the tax laws of this State nearly twenty
years ago. and took practically the same ground
then as he takes now. This is, in brief, that
such law cannot be carried out and that its Ell
feet would be highly injurious to the CONNER
cial and business interests of the State, and
would make perjury and fraud vastly more
common. There have been many attempts dur
ing this period to enforce such a system OF tax
alton, and all of them have ended in compare
tive failure. Three years ago, as MIR. Weus
states, Connecticut determined to investigate
the subject of State taxation, and the commits
sion reported that, although listing of personal
property by the owners had been compulsory
during thirty-six years, the amount of such
property returned had steadily decreased. In
1856, S19,186,09 was the amount returned {;
in 1885, $13.2O8.724. No one needs to be
told that during this interval the increase IN
personal property must have been enormous
Mr. Wells also draws attention to the interest
ing fact that in Massachusetts,, where the policy
of taxing mortgages had long and fair trial,
its abandonment was followed by decline OF
I IL per cent in rates of interest on mortgage
loans on Boston real estate. The Maryland
Tax Commission reported few months ago
that although beginning the investigation with
decided preposession in favoring OF taxing
mortgages its members had been convinced
that the inevitable result would be to drive
away capital and to infict vast deal of in
convenience and suffering on the borrowing
class outside of the large cities, especially the
farmers There is no case on record, appar-
emily, where the taxation of personal property
has produced satisfactory results, and no way
has vet been suggested in which its difficulties
can be overcome.
These are certainly good reasons why the
Legislature shall not rashly undertake to en-
large upon a system which has had no success
either here or elsewhere. Another reason is
that the people of the State have pronounced
positively, on several occasions, against such
forts. Twenty-Five years ago report was
made to the Legislature in favor Of Just such
compulsory listing under oath of personal prop
erty as the Brundage bill contemplates, the
contents Of the list being known only to the
assessors and shielded from the public. But
no Legislature ever acted upon the report, and
five years afterward proposed clause in the
State Constitution requiring uniform rules Of
assessment and taxation" for real and personal
property was defeated by a large majority when
submitted separately to the popular vote.
Every mans good sense will tell him that in
this country citizens will not be willing to state
to Government officers just how much money
they have in the bank, Just how much money
they have loaned, Just how much money is due
them, even when they have the assurance that
the information shall be regarded as confden-
tial. The income tax, which was no more in
auisitorial than this would be, was borne with
only out of patriotic feeling, and was probably
the most unpopular tax ever levied in this
country.
We should be sorry to see the Brundage bill
pass, first, because it would cause much loss and
hardship, which would fall eventually on the
debtor class; secondly, because it would EN-
barrass and injure the Republican party to have
the Republican Legislature pass law which
would so surely be unpopular. For these rea-
sons we hope Mr.. Brundage will not press it.
The excellent reputation he has made in the
Legislature is proof of his sincerity in this
eff rt to correct some of the inequalities of tax
alton, but the expedients proposed in the bill
have been condemned by the experience Of
many States.