The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1897-08-26

false return Of his property No at |
tempt was made on the part of fhe
person charged with fraud 10 show
that he had not IN ads false return,
bat the Gaze got into the courts and
by a technicslity such as can be de-
vised some times in favor Of ipfuen-
tial aud wealthy people, the old Law
was declared imperative. IL never
had been repealed however. and mas
not been repealed 10 this day.
So far az we have gone into the
discussion Of the matter of solvent
credits here We have simply assumed
that they have not been and are not
now properly listed on the tax books.
An assumption In this matter is all
that we can make; / frankly con-
fess that | could not Offer any tang
lille proof TO show that they are not
properly listed, but | think / can
assume that no intelligent man in
this State needs any proof OF this
statement.
Incidents and circumstances might
be quoted in support of the position
that this kind Of property does not
bear anything like its proportionate
share Of taxation, and by way Of IL
lustration | will offer an incident in
my recent, personal experience.
When the matter Of making these
credits non collectible by law unless
they showed evidence of having been
listed for taxation, was under con-
sideration during the last General
Assembly, | engaged in a contro-
yersy on the question with the cash
Ter of one Of the leading banks in
Raleigh. After considerable talk
pro and con | asked the banker if,
in the event the six per cent interest
law should be repealed, he would be
willing to withdraw his opposition
to the law making solvent credits
non collectible without evidence of
having been llsted7 His reply was,
"No, l would rather have the six
per cent law than to be subject to
the on collectible law as propose ;"
Now it may be very readily assumed
that bankers are in business for the
sake Of profit; it may also be easily
a. med that bank which regulates
itself under the provisions of the six
per cent interest law must sustain
considerable loss of revenue as COM
pared with the old law, which allow
ed eight per cent and more. So ii
needs no elaborate particularizing
here to describe the full meaning of
the answer of this banker. A little
consideration Of it in your own mind
will give you q clearer idea of what
it means than I could possibly con-
vey to you. Incidents of this kind
and other incidents which have come
under my knowledge, and doubtless
many which have come under yours,
go TO prove that the assumption
that solvent credits largely escape
their proportionate share of the pub
lie burden is not n violent one.
We are not here of course to make
new laws, but to consider as best we
may, plars for making the laws
we have as effective as pos
sible with due regard
for justice towards every in
dividual and every class and spe-
cios of property. We may not be
able To accomplish any radical i'm
prOvement in the matter of imposin g
proper charges on this property for
the protection it gets from the State
under our present laws, but the
time may come when some of you
will be law makers, aud the time is
already here when men who propose
to be law makers are more or less
subject to your demands, aud g. full
consideration of the suggestions
which have attempted to Offer, may
IN the course of time lead to the es
tablishment Of such machinery q.
will be more eff 4ctive than we nov
have.
We might reasonably expect tina
the the property known as "Solven
Credits would be q little NOR,
changeablo in amounts, as estimated
by dollars, than would the number
Of acres of land in a county, but tn
State reports of four years show NJ
greater difference or variation in th.
amount of solvent credits reported
from year to year, as measured b,
dollars, than appears to be in tn
reports Of the number of acres o
land. 1t may be interesting to stat
that the total amount of solven
credits reported for taxation in thi
State is equal to about $1,000 pc
capita.
| Any discussion that may be neces
sary or desirable concerningIour rev
enue and taxation Machinery, Nigh
properly be left for the general con
sideration of this body; but in vie1
of some comment which has been re
Gently made on a portion of the pres
ent Revenue Act l shall venture t
offs one or two suggestions. Anon
the penalties, fines etc., provided 70
!, the enforcement of our Revenue Act
, it is made a misdemeanor for an
person to refuse to swear to his re
turn of property, the misdemeano
being punishable by fine of $50. OC
or Imprisonment for thirty days, Q
both. The same penalty is i'm pose
for wilful failure to list property or t
list poils.i 1t thus appears that prt
vision is made for imprisonin
citizens who refuse to acknow
edge their tax liability to tn
: State. Section SO, of the exis
ing Revenue Act, provides tbs
a person who shall fail to PA
!, taxes shall be gully of a misd,
meanor aud may be punished by
fine Of $50. or imprisonment for ST
months. The comment above r.
7 ferred to is concerning the impo
4 sition of this last named penalt,
8 and is generally in the nature Of
e discussion as to the unconstitutio,
9 slity of Imprisonment for debt
! this State. We have often heard
q various, very peculiar technicalti'
: which some lines contain force f.
either good or bad in a code Of Law
;. No question is raised as to the III
!, constitutionalIty Of imprisoning
|. citizen in this State because be fai
g or refuses to put his name on the to
f list, although the obligation d,
q from him to the State is Just tt
, same RS it is after his name has a