The Portland daily press., 1890-09-25

A Reply to "a scneme of Doubtful
ProprIetv.p

ProprIety."
To the Editor of the Press:
The vigorous attack of the PRESS upon
that part of the report of the commissioners
on taxation and our petition, which relates
to the oath to the tax list calls for reply.
Massachusetts,, an enlightened common
wealth, in her statutes, chapter II, section
80, says, 1.-THE assessors shall in all eases re-
quire person to make oath that the same is
true" The Maine Statutes, chapter 6. Sec
| tion "a, reads, "The assessors, or either of
them, mag require the person presenting
such list to make oath to its truth" The
difference between the sovereign command
shat IN all cases, and the simple permissive
may, Is very great. The first stands behind
the assessors like a king. The last makes
the assessors stand before the taxpayer like
servant trembling lest he be rebuked If he
require the oath.
In Massachusetts the Legislature takes the
responsibility and commands both the asses
sors and the assessed. The Maine legislature
cowardly leaves the poor assessors to fight
the battles of the State. and of their own
town and city, "single-handed and alone"
If personal property is to be the subject of
taxation it inevitably follows that it must be
listed" as the law terms it, either by the
owner thereof who knows what taxable prop
erty he has, or by the assessors, who do NJ {
know. 1t would seem businesslike to have
the list made by the person whe knows. If
there is to be any controversy as to this
proposition, decline to engage in it. When
the list has been made and signed, If true
the signer cannot object to swearing to It; if
false he should be compelled to make true
list or subject himself to the penalties of
perjury,
The PRESS, and the persons it cites as au-
thorities, contend that the rich care not for
oaths. But be 1t known that even the de-
formed soul of the avaricious man has
wholesome fear of the penalties of the stat.
ute law, If he have none for the Mosaic law,
whose penalties can be escaped by repent
| ance, which popularity is entirely wanting
| 10 the statute law. If it be commended that
legal penalties are unavailing to prevent i'm
measurable wrong doing, decline that dis
| cussion, because our entire code of laws in
tended to command obedience is code of
penalties.
That our present impotent law. lacking
not only in penalty but obligatoriness, should
belthe especial pet and delight of the tax
dodger is perfectly natural. Now the dog is
muzzled while he does what is morally the
exact equivalent of stealing the money Of his
honest neighb0r and fellow citizen.
The proposed law, which will put this class
Of gentry under the penalties of perjury,
they now protest against, by their ADLER
friend the PRESS, that 1t will lead to inpu-
merable peIjuries, belittle the solemnity of
an oath, weaken the consciences of the hon.
est even, and attempt to clinch the "high ar
| gument," by an unqualified endorsement of
| the sentiment, though not the words, of Eng
| lands poets SANDER of our age, as time,
when simply not all men lie."
When cause Is so el0quently pleaded.
and all in the pretended interest Of the hon
| est, it is certain that the right suggestion
has been made. The PRESS says, "the nev-
liable effect of it, if it becomes law, will be
| to impose heavy taxation on men with con-
siences, and tighten the burdens of men men
without. 1t will also very rapidly reduce
the number of men with consciences." The
argument of the PRESS may be briefly, but
fairly, stated thus: The good man tells the
escapes taxation. Therefore neither of them
ought to be required to list his taxable prop
erty under oath. l will leave this logic to
the Judgment of the reader.
But the unconnected links of the chain may
well be examined. The conduct of the good
man in this discussion, as elsewhere, needs
not be distrusted His list will be correct or
our definition of good man is defective
He will not be harmed by the perjury of the
bad man, except indirectly by the conse-
quent increased rate, or percentage But it
| the bad men which troubles the PRESS. But
the PRESS, in my opinion, is far too credu-
| ions when 1t quotes with appreciation from
Prof. Ely as to the character of the rich men
| of Ohio. Asks the Professor of his infor-
| mer, SIT seems to me from what you say
there is not wealthy man In the State of
Ohio who is not perjurer? He replied, ut
| Is true" Says the PRESS, "Does anybody
suppose that human nature in Maine is any
different from human nature in Ohio, and
| that the same temptation here will not work
the same results as there?"
| Tho rich men of Portland have contrib
| uted very little to my prosperity, yet must
| defend them against the terrible Indictment
| of such a sweeping charge as capacity for
| perjury! have almost daily for thirty-two
years been an observer of. the conduct of
Portland's rich men, and knoto that such is
not generally even, much less universally,
| the character of our rich men.
The two persons, the Governor of Ohio and
Prof. Ely, cited by the PRESS as authorities,
make q sad exhibition of their want Of can
dor. l repudiate them as authority upon the
point Their exaggerations impeach their
own testimonies. Gen. Samuel ]. Anderson
who knows the men of Portland, rich and
poor as we'll as any man, is far better author
ON The eommssion assOy Wben
she passed the law have cited, did not sup
pose. nor has she since discovered that the
act could be more appropriately styled
measure to punish honest men and reward
dishonest ones, and to promote and encour-
age lying, than measure to equalize tax
atiOn."
Formerly parties to civil suits, and persons
charged with crimes, could not testify in
tutlT OWu U6udll, DtCduSt, DIS was D6ll6VeO,
such permissions would tempt them to COM
init perjuries 1t was thought better to let
| an innocent man be hung for murder, than
| to lay the temptation. to lie himself clear,
before him, Now any person can testify in
his own behalf, and leave the jury to Judge
| how much of his testimony is true No judge
| or lawyer would advise return to the old
| method. The oath to the tax list would
| probably disclose in Portland ten millions eff
| property not now taxed, making the person
| al estate of the city equal to its real estate
| valuation.
| This is the real objection which these pro-
| testers against the sworn tax list have to the
measure. They want to save their money.
| and let the humble house holders and farm
| ers pay the taxes for the support of our in
| situations. The PRESS has genuine inter-
| est In the preservation of the sanctty of an
| oath, in common with all good citizens, but
| few convictions for perjury would do more
| to tone up the community on this matter
| than anything else that know of. Now my
| suggestions in relation to the penalty for not
| bringing in the list to the assessors Is this.
| The assessors of Portland for instance
doom" certain man as the statutes re-
quire when he does not bring in his list, ac-
| c0rding to their best judgment, at a valua-
| ton of one hundred thousand dollars for
personal property. The tax of that man at
man at two per cent would be two thousand
dollars. / would suggest that the fine or
penalty for not listing his property as re-
Quired by law, be one half as much as his
tax. This rule would impose large fines
upon the rich and small fines upon the poor
as is just) This fine should be collected in
the same way as the tax is collected. If it be