The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-02-07

I
was uppused to occupation tax, but for
lexpedlency he would support an equitable
AK aai re thought the bill az reported by
7 the committee was fair and Just
! reery supported the committee amend
ment He said II an occupation tax was
taken on merchants il should be taken
OF all others.
tSchlutsr in the chalrl
Garner contended that II the occupatlos
tax was en- unjust one IT, should ha ~.
moved and now was the time 20 NEE. the
4 issue. The levy Of nm occupation tan was
/ IN effect saying that the party on whom
! II was assessed wac guilty Of committing
a crime In the pursuit Of his vocation.
| Tucker met the proposition that mer-
chant would shift the burden OF an occu-
patton tax on his customers by sayipe
that he would shift his ad valerem tax ia
The same manner He held hat the oecu-
patton tax was right IN principle beea,Laa
10 per cent of the litigants were merchants
and they should pay for this prot sction
Gioean opposed ar occupation tax IN
the principle of ,he OILY lust tax being an
ad yalorem tax, He argued that it was
double taxation. If nan hal money in
hank II was only taxed once, yet If he in
auguated an enterprise and placed thu
money IN circulation he Nas again taxed,
I
Pursuits the greater would become the
mower ard influence OF the department
stores. The populists ad declared against
occupation taxes and In ibis he gave them
credit for being right as they were on
the silver question. ana he was willing 10
acknowledge the right, no matter who
proposed it, He spoke for the consumers,
VINO in the end paid II therefore he OPP
posed 1t.
Smith of Grayson Federated his opposi-
ton 10 the imposition of an occuoation
tax on principle. He opposed it on the
cardinal principle that all taxes which are
not equal are unjust and because oceupa-
uon taxes were not levied upon all
Nocatlons, The merchant who was a It'll
giant was not the beneficiary of tho courts
10 was a misfortune to be involved in uti-
cation. II a proper income tax could he
| framed he would favor it for raising
money TO defray the expenses of all gov
eminent The argument that The State
needed money was dangerous one The
highwayman needed money: was his call
ing an honest one? The democratic party
for 100 years had declared for equal and
uniform taxation and when the populists
opposed the occupation tax they simply
ADOPTED democratic principle Did tbe
lact That the burden would fall on tho
farmer Justify an unjust tax? The farm.
ers did not desire 10 shrk their responsi.
DIZZY OF bearing the burden Of NECESSARY
taxation
calvin argued that the occupation tax on
iue'ehants was Just. a farmer on a $1,000
farm would pay on that amount. mer
chant might on the LIST of January have a
STOCK valued at $1,000 and pay tax on only
thai amount yet before the year had end
ed Re might carry a $4,000 stock The
supreme court had decided that the 90
cupation tax was just
Wells said that in his (Graysonl conn
" the farmers had found out that thav
were paying the occupation taxes and they
were heartily tired of doing so. When
ms issue came up it had always been
customary TO shirk responsibility by de-
Ierrlns action to a subsequent legislature
lie wanted the issue met right now The
legislature was now in session for the
special purpose of deciding the issue and
u should be decided. Followed out 10 It's
legitimate results an occupation fax was in
FAVOR OF the rich and against the moor
a recess was then taken until . p. m.
AS soon as the house was called to order
q oeloek, Monroe secured recognition.
me whole matter at issue no said was
simply whether or not the stale co1,,a AZ
without the money derived from the coi-
lection OF occupation taxes: il was
MS opinion that the commissions
rad. given the subject consldera-
ton. He thought they had taken
INTO consideration the amount necessary
70 meet governmental expenses and he
esll4ea mat 1t was necessary to raise
eaAes lor tnese purposes Before striking
put occupation taxes It should be ascer9
oa,tg wiener ine proposed income tax
Nuula raise sufficient revenue II the
OCCUPATION tax is not levied the al vaioren,
,aA VIII he so high ht necessity thar Tho
farmers VIII raise howl that win ba
heard all over the State
Druoos said the question was whotbsr
we should continue the present system Ea
eSuiu not see where any one conld UNFOLD
.ne lustness OF tax on useful and iegit-
, .tus'e OCCUPATIONS and il he had his wny
,,O,,e S "unlu De no occupation tax on
l,spor dealers. because he would wins ~,
me traffic entirely. He hooted M AZ
.nst merchant Of ordinary b,is,ne.s
suukihent would not charge IN Ia the 90
esper MS occupation taxes as he ,,o,,ld
u'nel necessary and nxed charsss IL tna
transaction Of his business. The pnys.rroy
nco eaiied attention 10 a surplus on sgso-
~" an lhe treasury and advised resuc-
,.On "a me tax rate. He preferred man.
shs,,ah y me present ad valorem tax and
"ueiishing the occupation taxes.
Nhsmhers argued rhat the graded tax
OF merchants should amply also 10 iauvsrs
ana others He said that an income nv
Notia he pronosed which would raise sngEH
sieht money 70 rsooup the school flnd and
b ~, &c GOOD the amount which would he LOST
~ zoe removal Of the occupation taxes
neVher moved to table the pending mo.
Won Frost's substitute. which sousht 10
s,iike oui the occupation tax on mes-
sAsnisi the motion was tabled. ayes A.
noe ~ The vote. which IS test ve,e
;n 81 % occupation taxes. In detail Is as tol.
Ayes---57s
nsh lhopkinsl, Mcclellan.
r lese Mckamy
pan, Mcclellan.
Caldwell. Mor-or
Calvin ol,.'
childfrs. rssr,'
$500. ffeuffer.
Era ~ tara