The Washington times., 1902-05-02

NN''i''''N'" '''in h7N iIdgc.D
H
or per cent provided for their payment.
That is what every other municipality
does. he said. yet it was proposed here
to pay the entire expense in one year.
1t was an injustice. whether the tax was
levied upon real estate or personal prop
erty.
Mr. Richardson said he thought a rae
of $50 was not excessive. and if the per-
manent improvements could be paid for
at that rate he saw no objection to pay
ing the expense in one year. In every
municipality in the country the county.
city, and State taxes exceeded a Sl.50
rate.
The Law Incomprehensible.
Taking up the personal tax proposition
specifically. Mr.. McDcrmott said it was
10 wonder that the court set aside the
personal tax law of 1871: no one could
tell what the law meant.
If it means that every corporation that
does dollars worth of business in the
District. whether incorporated here or
not is to be assessed S1-50 on its capital
stock. then it would mean that the Gen
eral Electric Company. for instance. with
a capital of SAC. goo 900. II IL opened up an
hundred upon forty millions. Under such
a tax no such company would come here
TO do business.
IL ii meant a tax upon corporations
Incorporated in the District then such
would withdraw and incorporate else
where. In either event within six months
the law would produce no revenue.
He did not believe in passing legisla-
ton in the House to have its defects
cured in the Senate. He would challenge
any member TO tell what the law OF 1877
meant.
Court to Pass on Law.
Mr.. Bell Dem. COLI suggested that
the court could pass upon the law. 1t
was such as was in force in nearly every
State. but tine Commissioners had de-
stroyed the board of equalization and
made ii imperative. The court had de-
clared he said. that it was a good law.
His understanding was that the pro-
vision proposed to assess those corpora
lions which were citizens of the Dis
trict. and that they be assessed for the
value of their stock the same as other
property.
Mr. McDermott said tax upon the gross
receipts within the District would be a
fair personal tax. but if ii was proposed
to tax the entire capital stock. leaving
the market value, which cannot be proven
or disproven. to the vaSaries of the As
SCISSOR. it could easily be seen that it
would drive the corporations out of the
District. while If applied TO corporations
organized outside the District it would
prevent them from coming in. Mr.. Me
Dermott said he did not oppose but IA
vored a Just personal tax.
VI al StlRppsfel
the method practiced in Pennsylvania was
to impose the personal tax upon foreign
corporations upon the amount OF stock
which was engaged or employed within the
State. Mr.. McDermott said the present
system of taxation in the District was
unfair and unjust. and he hoped would
seine day be done away with.
Opposed Personal Tax.
Ir. Morrell (Rep.. Pa.) q member OF
the District Committee, opposed a per-
sonal tax, and criticised the Appropria-
lions Committee for usurping one of the
duties and functions of the District Com
mittee. in attempting to place The per-
sonai tax provision in the appropriation
bill. He thought IL a personal tax was
levied, that il should exempt retired Of
hcers of the army and navy, and others
whom he enumerated
Mr.. Payne asked IL the people Of the
District were not lucky in having es-
capped personal tax for twenty-five years.
Mr.. Siblcy asked whether Washington.
If the people who lived here were exempt
ed from both personal and realty tax.
would not become the greatest city in the
world. Mr.. Aorrell thought it would IN
He was not opposed. he said, I
TO levyiDg a personal tax, but he opposed 1
the proposed method OF doing it.
Mr.. Burkett. a member of the Appro-
priations Committee. said it had only re-
Gently been ascertained that a personal .
tax could not be levied under the law OF
1871
He did not know that the provision pro-
posed would be able to reach AN taxable
property. but that was not doAe any
where. The provision only provided the
which Justice Clabaugh in his
decision said was necessary to carry the
law into effect.
Revenues Undetermined.
In answer to question by Mr.. Bellamy.
Mr.. Burkett said he had been unable to
how much revenue 1t would pro-
luce: IL had been estimated all the way
rom a million to a million and a half.
Anyway it would not raise any more than
he people OF the District were anxious to
,xpend.
He was in favor OF beautifying the Dis
rict within reasonable bounds. and
wherever the District raised dollar he
was willing to add dollar from the
United States Treasury.
Mr. Sims Dem. TENN wanted to know
4 1t was proposed to go back and collect
he personal taxes under the law which
lad not been collected because of the lack
If the necessary machinery for the past
twenty-five years.
Mr. Burkett said he thought II the Gov
srnment had not collected il 1t ought not
low to have IT..
Mr. McDermott made the point that the
provision did enable the board of review
o go back and perform the duty which
lad been neglected for quarter of a
century. Mr.. Burkett questioned the ad
of doing that.
Nr McDermott said his point was not
Is to the propriety of such action. but as
o what the effect of the provision was. II
man had escaped taXation for long
orm of years ii was now time that he
vas made TO pay.
Might Raise a New Point.
Mr. Burkett said that some personal
axes had been paid under the law. The