Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-01-29

For the past TWO years ene eoi'o
| sioners of the revenue IN tnls county
have not only made the merchants pay
| license hut on the LIST day OF February
| of each year they have come into our
| stores and listed our goods for taxation
| for county purposes. and made us pay
| 81 on each 500 worth.
Please LET us know If this is according
TO law II IL is, merchant under the
parks hin I'm this county will not only
pay a double. but. possibly, treble tax
pay his license. list his goods on hand
the LIST day OF February for taxation Tor
county purposes, sell part OF them out
on a credit and then list his notes and
accounts for taxation before he can coll
let them. Let 'X-Ray," who recently
discussed this matter in your paper. ex-
plain a little more fully the justice OF
such a law.
COUNTRY MERCHANT.
Tazewell County. Va.
Country Merchants" letter was re-
ferred by us to 'X-Ray." whose answer
we append:
l. The license-tax paid by a merchant
is simply for the privilege Of doing busi-
ness, and is in lieu only of all taxes for
State purposes on the actual amount in
vested by such merchant in his goods,
wares and merchandise constituting his
stock in trade. acts lSS9-'9O, page PA, sec
ton q; and Acts 1886. page SID
g All other property held by a mer-
chant, including the money, bonds, notes,
and other evidences of debt due him In
his merchantie business, as well as
otherwise. and his chattels is required to
be listed by him and taxed for State
purposes in addition to the license-tax
paid by him to the State for the prlvi-
lege OF doing his mercantile business.
and the same is not exempt under the
Parks law. All such property goes into
the list of his personal property, which
he is required to return to the Commits
sioner of the Revenue, to be placed on
the personal-property books for direct
personal property taxation for State pur-
poses. (Acts 1850. page Sl7; Acts 1SS9-'90,
page PA. section q; and page 200, section.
S-first clause as amended by the Parks
law)
3. AS the merchant pays no license tax
TO the counties for the privilege of doing
his mercantile business, and as the license
tax paid by him is in lieu only of
all taxes for State purposes on the actual
amount invested by him in goods. wares,
and merchandise constituting his stock
in trade. 1t follows that such goods,
wares. and merchandise, as we'll as every
other species of personal property held by
him. including money, bonds, notes, and
other evidences of debt due him in his
business, or otherwise. are subject TO d.
rect personal property taxation for all
county purposes, and should be included
in his list Of personal property returned
to the Commissioner of the Revenue to
be placed upon the personal property
books for taxation for such county pur-
poses.
L. The Commissioner of the Revenue in
Tazewell county acted, therefore, in ac-
cOrdance with law, and II does not appear
that taxation, as stated above, is either
double or treble taxation.
Attorneys, physicians (who are not
drug merchants), and dentists, not only
pay license taxes to the State for the
privilege of practicing their professions,
but also pay both TO the State and coun-
ties the direct personal property taxes for
State and county purposes, on all their
personal property. neither the books of
the attorneys nor the instruments of the
physicians, nor any species of their per-
sOnal property, being exempt from per-
sOnal property taxation for either State
or county purposes. Merchants are more
fortunate Their goods, wares, and mer-
chandise are exempt from taxes for State
purposes.
"X-Ray" is a lawyer of prominence.
but his view as to the assessment of the
notes and evidences of debt of those who
have paid the States taxes upon their
capital invested is not accepted in legis-
lative circles here.
We have in print and purpose printing
tomorrow letter from Senator Bever-
ley b. Munford, in which the Parks law
is reviewed, and in which the Senator
maintains that the bonds, notes, and
other evidences of debt of a merchant
who is taxed upon his capital are not re-
quired to be listed for taxation. Mr..
James Lewis Anderson and others have
already given public expression to the
same opinion.
In our judgment these gentlemen are
well fortified in their position, and If
the law shall be so interpreted by those
whose duty it will become to enforce it,
we are free to say one of the greatest
objections TO the Parks law will be re-
moved