Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1895-03-08
See that you get DANA'S.

burden of all the testimony was that the
effect of this bill would be to drive capital
from the State OF Maine. There was not
a single argument introduced before the
committee that this bill was not right.
The opposition can come only from those
who wish, for themselves or for others, to
cover up property and keep it from paying
its proportion of the just taxes of the
State.
Now, Just one word upon the effect
which it is claimed that this bill will
have upon the prosperity of our State. A
bill Ct this nature has been in operation in
Vermont for years. Has it had an evil
eject in that state? l hold in my hand
"a letter from Governor Woodbury. of Yer
mont. He says that the people are gener-
ally satisfied with the law and that those
who are not satisfied with it are the PEG
pie of large means who have large
amount of personal property The farm
ers like it, He says that he does not be
Iieve that there will be any change in the
law in Vermont for great many years. L
submit that this is partial answer,
le lst, to these arguments that this bill Will
d rive capital from the State.
: claim that there are only two logical,
consistent positions that any man can
take upon this matter. One is to pass this
bill, and the other is to exempt personal
property from taxation altogether. There
is no middle ground. If personal proper
ty is to be equally taxed it is necessary to
know where 1t all is, and who owns 1t.
I stand here as the representative OF a
large, intelligent class of our citizens,
who have been calling for years for this
measure. They expect me to stand here
for, this measure, and shall stand here for
it, If l have to stand entirely alone. l
hope you will all give me credit for my
faithfulness in this fight. / know it is
futile at this time, but l can at least feel
that have done my duty.
Mr.. Simpson of Hancock asked If the
bill would be agreeable to the senator
from Aroostook if the clause referring to
the % per cent to be added in case list
were not brought in to the assessors were
stricken from the bill. He said that that
clause was objectionable to him.
Mr.. Wiggin replied that the friends OF
this measure had thought it ought to be
90 per cent. but that 25 per cent was
agreed to rs a compromise.
Mr.. Marston of Somerset: do not think
that there is any necessity of argument
here whatever | think that the sensible
minds of those who are opposing this
measure have already decided this qucs-
ton But want to say in reply to the
gentleman from Aroostuok few words
to show him what other people think of
this system where it has been practically
worked.
In the first place, with regard to driv-
ing capital out of the State nave
written to at least 80 capitalists outside
of the State who have already invested, or
are intending to invest, capital in the
State of Maine. They are unanimous in
their testimony that this would be one of
the most serious causes of preventing capt.
tai from coming into the State, and Of
causing it to be withdrawn from the State
wherever it corld be withdrawn. They
said unanimously that 1T would be the
worst thing that we could possibly do.
Now, as to the farmers. ! took some
pains to get the names Of large number
of intelligent farmers, regardless of their
political faith, and | wrote to about 100
of them, asking their opinion on this mat
ter. and can~-teil you, Mr.. President,
that have got among the letters from
these farmers some of the strongest argu-
ments against this bill that you could
possibly conceive of. About so per cent
of these farmers are against this bill,
while few of them are radically the
other way. This inquiry of mine seemed
to me to show that the Intelligent farm
ers did not want this measure.
Now, as to how the law has worked in
other states I sent letters to the State
officials of every state in the Union where
they had law of this kind, listing law
of any sort in operation, and | had many
very interesting replies. would like to
call your attention to one reply in par
ticular, from the secretary of state of Ohio:
1.-The law as at present in force in this
state, and which is practically the same as
the bill now before your Legislature, was
enacted in 1916, and has been amended
in but few unimportant particulars. 1t
has been beneficial in its results in the
respect that it has reached certain classes
of property that had hitherto escaped taxa
ton, but it has been a disappointment
that it has not accomplished the main OBJ
ject of reaching the moneys and credits,
investments in stocks and bonds. These
classes of property practically escape taxa
ton under our system, and it has thrown
the burden of taxation upon real property
and tangible personal property $
lii 1898. by authority of resolution,
the Governor appointed tax commission
to thoroughly investigate the subject,
copy of the report of which / enclose you
under separate cover. While the recon-
mendations made hv tho commission xvara