The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1893-03-10
Passes the House by a Big Ma.
jority.
THE VOTE is PRECEDED BY AN
ANIMATED DEBATE.
Able Argument in Opposition by Mr..
Woodbury-Mr. Fairbanks Longs to
See the Heavens Fall, in Which Case
the Bangor Hospital Can Catch Larks.
Especial to the Press.1

Especial to the Press1
AUGUSTA, March 9.-The House went
on record this morning as in favor of the
listing bill by large majority. The bill
was passed in the form in which it was
recently printed in the PRESS.
The debate was interesting and the
speakers were literally applauded, Dr..
Morrilps reference to the fall of the
Heavens and Mr.. Fairbanks appearance
in the debate with that omnipresent
Bangor hospital, causing considerable
merriment. Mr.. Emerson of Portland
occupied the Speakers chair during the
debate. Mr.. Scott of Patten called it up
and made the opening speech in it's favor.
He called it only slight amendment of
| the existing law and quoted figures to
show that in the states where listing
system had been adopted the per cent. of
personal property in relation to the
whole valuation was much greater than
in states which had no such system. It
was compromise measure, not pleasing
in all it's particulars to every member of
the committee, but the best on which
they could agree. 5Sj
Mr.. Morrill, Of Gray thought that the
bill, after the long scussion Of this
question, had assumed form which
should meet with approval.
Mr.. Adams of Bangor characterized
the measure as dangerous and pernicious
and moved its indefinite postponement.
Mr.. Powers of Houlton asked to whom
was the bill pernicious. Did it make any
property taxable that was not SO already?
1t was mild bill and relieved the people
of this state and especially the farming
element had right to ask the
passage of such law. The
bill imposed upon no citizen any duty
not imposed upon him today. 1t did
provide that if he did not comply with
It's provisions, the assessors should add
25 per cent to their valuation of his
property. No honest man should OBJ
ject to e. 1t was question of fairness
OF taxation, not the amount; question
of preventing the taxation Of one class Of
property at the expense of another.
BY this bill we have uniformity Of
questions. By it we shall get uni
formitv of valuation. 1t may be called
an entering wedge, but it is a step in the
right direction. By it, Mr.. Powers be-
lieved that the farmers of the hills and
valleys of Maine might become more
prosperous.
Mr.. Woodbury. of Deering said that if
he believed this bill would do what was
expected of it, he should heartily sup
port. He represented many farmers but
he did not believe that they wanted any
special legislation. ALI they wanted was
justice.
Mr.. Woodbury. of Deering was the
principal speaker in opposition and his
speech was good one. He opposed the
bill because he believed that the similar
laws mentioned by the gentleman from
Patten had not resulted as 1t
was hoped that they would.
The law might increase the
state valuation but If you added $50, ,000.-
600 TO the valuation and placed it upon
the shoulders of those who already bore
the burdens, what had you accomplished.
In the state of Ohio which had been men
toned, in the three years after the law
was created, the amount of personal
property had reduced $32 600, 900. Per
haps that would not be the case here, but
it had been the result in Ohio. Professor
Ely had been mentioned in these halls
before. He had examined these laws in
many states, among others that of West
Virginia. where he found that the listing
system was faithfully complied with only
by the guardians of infants and the poor.
In Georgia, it was said that the result of
this law had been that many people per-
iured themselves to escape its provisions.
In the great and growing state of Illinois,
in thirteen years after the passage of
such law as this, Notwithstanding the
increase in the states wealth, the valua-
ton of the personal properly reported
under the bill had decreased $S0O0.
A retired merchant of Portland,
man who was in position where, per-
sonally, he would not perhaps object to
this bill, said that If it passed and re-
quired young merchants to lay open
their business secrets, it would result in
the failure of many of them. Suppose
it became known how much debt in the
conduct of their business these men
the effect on their credit? The president
of bank in the eastern section of the
state had given similar testimony. He
said that the young business men who
ran accounts in his bank, hustling, en-
terprising fellows, could not stand up
under such system as this. The busi-
ness men who did business largely on
credit. already in many cases. paid taxes
on much more than they owned. They,
too, were the men who had to take risks
in their business. and they were the men
who failed. The farmers of this state
were not the men who were called into
the insolvency court.
This bill, as had been said, was aimed
at the hundred thousand dollar man,
but Mr.. Woodbury. submitted that it
would in practical operation, impose
burdens upon the poor and upon the
funds of widows and orphans. MI.
Woodbury. did not want to tell how this
law might be violated, but as perhaps
there were 20 hundred thousand dollar
men in the House, and if the reporters
would not give him away. he would tell
how he knew it had been violated. That
was by the transferring Of property from
taxable form to form that was not tax
able. For instance, rich man put his
property into United States bonds, not
worn return converted his property to
!. original shape again. Why, this
skimner was full of hole holes; no, not full
OF holes, there was only one. and that
was as big as the whole thing. Mr..
WOODBURY. called attention to the busi-