The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1893-03-24
FRIDAY MORNING, : MARCH "a, 1898
SENATOR HAYES ON THE TAX
QUESTION.

G. Hayes, the author of the Hayes as
sessment law, to those who have
criticized it, As matter of course
Mr.. Hayes stands up boldly and I'M
fiinchingly for the bill with which his
name has become associated, and gives
logical reasons for the faith that is in
him with reference to the principles
upon which tax laws should be based.
In the first place he opposes vigor-
ously the idea set forth by speakers
in the tax convention that it was prop
erty and not persons that should be
taxed. He quotes the 18th article of
the Bill of Rights which expressly de-
clares that ''every person" ought to
contribute his proportion of public
taxes, his property being the measure
of his ability or of the amount he
ought to pay. When the owner can't
be reached by the taxing power, the
duty to pay taxes, says Mr.. Hayes,
rests upon his property in the State.
The theory that property and not per-
sons owes the duty of paying taxes,
Mr.. Hayes asserts, has enabled billions
of wealth to escape the payment of it's
just proportion of taxes
The value of property, Mr.. Hayes
thinks, is to be ascertained by it's pro-
ductiveness or earning capacity, and
for this reason he thinks bonds and
stocks should be taxed. The payment
eftaxes being a personal duty theState
ascertains mans ability to pay by the
bonds and stocks which are part of
his wealth, and which must be con-
sidered in indicating the just proper
ton of taxes he ought to pay. He
does not regard it as double taxation
for the person or persons owning prop
erty to be taxed for it and the person
holding the bonds secured by mort
gage on the same property to be also
taxed for bonds thus held
He notes an exception, however, in
cases where the person owning the
property is also required to pay taxes
ON the bonds. This, he comedies,
would be double taxation; and for the
same reason he holds that a tax on in
dividual mortgages would be wrong.
In this connection we must confess we
can not see how the taxing power; ac-
cording to Mr.. Hayes views, could
reach persons whose entire wealth or
nearly all of it is invested in non-taxa-
BILE mortgages.
Mr.. Hayes defends strongly the list
ing system, as contained in the bill
vetoed by Governor Brown, which
provides that every person should be
his own assessor, and prescribes penal
ties for false returns. This system, he
says, is in operation in twenty-four
States and greatly diminishes the es-
cape of Intangible property from taxa
ton. He says:
Every farmer and owner of movable
chattels, whether in the city or coun-
try, in effect has always listed his
hogs, farming implements and house
hold furniture. It can't be right to
have the owners of one class Of per-
sonal property required to give to the
assessor their property and'except an
other class. A tax law without the
listing feature is one which will not
tax, so far as this form of property is
concerned. The lists might be reauir-
ed annually or biennially and could
be limited to intangible property, or
they may include all property.
AS to the inquisitorial features of
his bill he says no effective tax law
can exist without this feature.
In the opinion of Mr. Hayes the 18th
article of the Bill of Rights is not
such an iron-clad rule as was once sup
posed. The two essential requirements
Of this article are equality and uni
formity, and these being preserved in
an assessment law the requirements of
the Constitution will be observed.
Mr.. Hayes's plan for reaching those
persons who secrete their intangible
property is an income tax, excepting
all incomes under s., 900 and imposing
small tax on all above that amount.
He regards this as permissible under
oAiO id1tCl OiduSc VI tIlc loGu ATIlcl6,
not as property tax but one for poll
tical purposes.
In view of the valuable franchises
which railroads enjoy that are not
accorded to individuals he thinks
tax on their gross receipts is safe
sure method of reaching them, and if
the per centum is large enough and
proportioned to their earnings per
mile it would yield a handsome reve-
nue. to the State. Mr.. Hayes thinks
that with proper management of our
State finances the direct tax could be
entirely abolished. He says:
Vermont has no direct State tax.
Government expenses are borne ex-
clusiyely by taxes on corporations
Maryland never was in better condi-
ton financially than now Her pub
lie debt is now only $8,500,000. She
has productive assets Of about So, $780,
900; these are worth more than par
and il sold and applied to the public
debt would reduce the latter to b3, 00O,-
600. This in few years could easily
be paid. Then without a public debt,
and the government economically ad-
ninistered, we, in Maryland, might in
imitation Of Vermont have the cor
porations exclusively pay the expenses
Of government, and the people of our
State be free from any State lax what
ever. This is not a visionary scheme.
1t is possible, and / might say easy of
attainment"
He does not for one moment admit
that under the application of his
theory capital would be driven from
the State, for the reason that non-resi-
dents Of the State of Maryland can't
be taxed on the bonds or evidences of
debt in which they invest their money
in Maryland. This the courts have
settled so that all the capital that
desires may come to Maryland from
abroad, and IL the owners OF that
capital are not citizens of Maryland
they can't be taxed on the bonds is
sued by Maryland corporation one
mill. Secondly-If the State of Mary
land says to her own citizens, you may
take your capital and invest it in bonds
or stocks issued by corporation in
Dakota, and we will not tax those
bonds, won't Maryland capital then
go to Dakota2 But if you say these
Dakota bonds will be taxed as we'll as
any other form of wealth you own,
won't this tend to keep that capital at
homer While the exemption of such
l. l. l.