The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-01-01

Assembly, the matter az securing an an.
proNimately reasonable tax from solvent
credits was a subject OF consideration
hy the Finance Committee. While the
matter was under discussion, ii was sug-
gested ny the State Auditor that an
enactment requiring evidence that q sol
vent credit had been listed for taxation
before such credit could he collected by
process Of law, would perhaps be of some
effect. A provision of this kind was
drawn and presented. Great pressure
was brought to bear on the committee
by large holders of solvent credits. to
reject this provision. The pleas of Eek
posing private matters to public gaze, ;"
driving capital ont of the State" etc,
were urged with persstency and effect,
and the provision failed of adoption
Yet. we'll established nrecedents would
have warranted and justified its enact
ment inasmuch as there existed a well
defined purpose to tax the kinds of per-
sonal property TO which it referred. We
may cite the State of Maryland. in
which it will be readily acknowledged
there is more capital and solvent credits
than in North Carolina.
The clear reason for the ineftcacy Of
such legislation as seeks TO impose and
collect General Property Tax" is that
it has been impracticable, and il is ac-
knowledged to be well nigh impossible,
to supplement- it with such machinery
as will make it effective. This conclu-
sion is so well settled in the minds of
some well known economists and writer's
on taxation as to inspire them to discuss
and advocate an abandonment of the
system of a General Property Tax al
together.
A system of taxation TO supplant the
one now in operation in this State and
which is in operation in nearly al the
other States of the Union, could not i'll
all probability. be recommended without
mourning the charge of raShness: but the
present system is rapidly acquiring Il
reputation as makeshift and failure.
Only in the States of the United States,
and in Holland is there any effort to
make it operative. and it must be modi-
fed or supplanted by some other system
ut no distant day. To this end, the
General Assembly could do nothing bet
ter than to provide. through the estab-
lishment of a commission or otherwise,
Ibl HAltnu1Q anu
on the subject. Such a commission was
raised by the General Assembly of 1895.
and the general plan and system re-
ported by it have never been reconsid-
cred. Changing conditions and new
ideas and theories demand more atten-
ton than can be properly given them by
those busted with other affairs or those
whose time for consideration is limited
to session of the General Assembly.
If the existing system is to remain
in acceptance, there is no escape from
the reasonable conclusion that one kind
of property should be subject to as rigor-
GUS tax laws as any other kind. Real
estate and other visible property are re-
CURED by law TO show some evidence of
having been listed for taxation. and
that the tax has been paid. to prevent
its sale for taxes or practical confsca-
ton. Why should not all property, tax
abl by law, b subjctd to similarly effec-
tive gulations-especially such as
yields certain annual profit in the form
of interest to the owner? The method
by which this can be most approximately
accomplished appears to be the enact
ment of provision making all credits
subject to taxation, non-collectible by
process of law unless evidence can be
produced that the taxes due thereon
hive been maid