The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-07-22
TIE PERSONAL TAX.

"A CORRESPONDENT OF the New 1ofk
Times saws that the personal tax Is ini-
Igifous fnasmuch as when levied on To-
cal property, margins. stocks and BONDS.
4, ts imposed on property already taxed,
and when levied on property situated out
side OF the county or city is robbery. De-
cause such property owes nothing to me
care or protection OF the county or city.
and. therefore Is a tax for which no re-
ruYn Whatever is made. by what law
az common sense" he asks. has the city
Of New York any right to levy o tax on
property situated q hundred miles OUTSIDE
OF the c!ty's l!mits?" He adds that II
IL no wonder that holders OF such prop
erty swear of" when held up by the
demand for payment
That is principle for which The Times
has been contending for these many
years. Il citizen OF Virginia owns
house and lot OF farm in the State OF
North Carolina, for example. there Is
never 4 suggestion that he should be
taxed In Virginia on such property. Inc
State Of Virginia lays no claim to such
e possession. The tax on such property
In North Carolina is laid and collected
by the North Carolina authorities. But
* a citizen OF Virginia owns certain In
terest in this same property in North
Carolina, represented by share or shares
of stock, /. is contended by many that
he should be assessed on his stock.
We have several times referred to
case in point in the city of Baltimore
A man died leaving large estate to
number OF heirs The estate was all in
realty For the sake Of convenience,
company was organized among the various
heirs, with power to own and control
the property. each heir receiving shares
of stock according to his inter-
est. It was the same property before
and after this change in the manner
OF ownership. and the property was taxed
before and after in the same way. Now.
no reasonable man would say that the
owners Of this property should be taxed
also on their stock. which Is mere evil
-dence OF ownership. There has been no
creation Of property by forming this
company. The property Is the same.
and the owners are the same in the last
instance, as in the first The property
IN taxed as other real estate is taxed,
and there's the end OF it.
Let us stretch the illustration bit. and
suppose that one Of those heirs chances
to live in the State of Virginia OF
course. he was not assessed on his Bal
ttnore property before the corporation
was formed. Why then in the name OF
common sense and justice Should he be
taxed on his stock after the company Is
formed. There has been absolutely no
change except in the form of ownership.
II he was exempt before he Should be
exempt now This property which he
owns is not the stock. but the real es-
tate which lies in the city OF Baltimore
and the State of Virginia has nothing
whatever to do with it
This is a simple illustration. but when
YOU come down to the feet. all stocks
are on all-fours with this stock which
we have described. A share OF stock
is not property. it Is mere evidence OF
ownership in property. We shall never
get at an equable adjustment OF the tax
question until this fact is recognized. The
ching to do Is for the State to tax the
actual property wherever it be found
and having done this. to exempt the evil
fence Of ownership. AS long as the
State attempt to do otherwise. she VIII
be encouraging people to dodge, and she
will be working a gross injustice to those
who honestly conform to the law d.
though knowing It to be unjust, and 10
widows and orphans who cannot escape
4f tf,e,, would