Sistersville daily oil review. [volume] (Sistersville, W. Va.) 1902-1905, 1903-08-20

| tempted to extravaganza, on the
one side, and the representatives OF
the class compelled to pay the tax,
on the other, helpless by reason OF
/ their inferiorityin numbers and the
fact that the mass of the people are
unable to feel, and hence to per
ceive, the wrongs of such tax pay
Ing class. To require one class to
provide what another may disburse
must necessarily lead to oppression
and extravaganza, to governmental
decentralization and business dis
aster.
Complaint Is made that under
our pres Mt tax system assessments
are unequal and tax burdens not
fairly distributed, vet this new
scheme of taxation sbandous every
principle Of fairness and equality.
lWhy should only the coal, oil aud
gas interests be required through
the pretense of a license to pay a
tax to the State, and not also the
iron, steel and tin plate mills, glass,
pottery and brick works, steam and
electric railroads, pulp mills, tan
neries and lumber interests? Why
should the great railroad corpora
tons be relieved of the $50. 900 per
annum State and State school
tax now paid by them, and
the burden of their exemp-
| ton be saddled on the coal opera
tors In the form of third of a
cent tonnage tax on their 20 ,ooo.-
600 tons output? Why should the
producers of oil and gas. who have
expended In the development OF
our producing fields money capital
largely greater In amount than the
aggregate. value of all the States
oil and gas production, be dlscrim-
mated against In favor OF the non
resident land owners who hold vast
areas of our domain and do nothing
to increase the wealth or advance
the prosperity of the Stste?
Our coal Is sold In the worlds
markets at prices fixed by COM
petition with the product on other
States. Why should we place
special and unusual burdens upon
III? Why should West Virginia
with Its future possibilities as a
great manufacturing State WELD
Its taxing powers to strike at the
basis OF all industrial development
cheap fuel?
| Regardless, however. of the par
tlcular subject of such tax, we con-
tend that any tax on production Is
wrong In principle and contrary to
enlightened public policy. 1t Is In
effect a tax upon the same capital
over and over again as often as 1t
lappears In the shape of the pro-
duct taxed. It Is tax on energy
and enterprise, tending to retard de-
velopment and industrial growth
and to drive away capital or force
1t into idleness.
| There are other features of the
proposed system which In ou-
Judgment condemn 1t as practical
and rational scheme of taxatiol.
It strikes down about $3.50, coo
of the.State's revenues, and by Its
own best showing with all Its dis
examinations and inequalities, falls
by at least 5000, 900 to supply the
deficit, and even then 1t requires
the counties to pay at least seventy
five per cent of the cost of main
tanning the humane institutions
and seventy FIVE per cent of the
criminal charges, now paid by the
State.
We submit that the State can
dispense with 100000, or one
fourth of the present State ard
State school tax, without c1ippliug
its finances, 1t were better to cut
down the present tax rate, and to
continue under the old system and
by constitutional methods to sup
port Its charitable and humane
institutions and meet It's criminal
charges. Certainly nothing Is
gained by pretending TO HIT the
burden of State taxation for these
purposes, only TO reimpose 1t again
for the same purposes by way OF
added county taxes through cum
bersome and expensive methods of
collection and settlement between
the state and the counties.
Moreover, we believe 1t to be a
chief function of State government
to properly safeguard the peace,
order and security of society by the
punishment Of Its felons and the
care of its insane, and this duty to
leoo;stv or 1arpe Shonld not be shift