The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1905-05-11
ABOUT REDUCTION OF POLL TAX.

The GOLD LEAF is on record as
favOring a reduction of the poll tax,
believing that the present rate, in
most instances, is burdensOme and
oppressive. And furthermore, we be-
lieye if the poll tax was only one dol
lar as much revenue would be COZ
lected as now and the burden of taxa
tion-the duty one owes to the gov
eminent in helping to support it
would be more equally shared. This
matter OF poll tax reduction was con-
sidered by the last Legislature, but
it was found that a constitutional
difficulty stood in the way. The Con-
stitution provides that the poll tax
shall bear q certain relation to the
property tax-equal to $500 valua-
ton OF property-whatever rate the
tax thereon may be fixed at. There
fore, before this can be changed, as
far as the State and county are con-
cerned, an amendment to the COnsti-
tuition will be necessary But this
does not apply to municipalities I'M
less so provided by the charter. There
is nothing in the charter of the town
of Henderson requiring that any spec
flied sum shall be levied. The matter
is discretionary with the Commits
sioners, only they cannot levy tax
exceeding three dollars. Paragraphs
l and 2, section 81, of the charter,
are as follows:
"SEC 81. That for the purpose of
defraying the expenses incident to the
proper government of the town, the
Commissioners may annually levy
and collect the following taxes:
81. On real estate situated in the
town, a tax not exceeding one dollar
on every hundred in value.
80. On any taxable polls who may
be resident in the town on the first
day of May of each year, and may
have been resident within the corpor-
ate limits thirty days next preceding
that day, tax not exceeding three
dollars
We are minded to refer to this mat
ter here by some remarks made by
Mayor Waddell, of Wilmington, to
the board of aldermen of that city
upon assuming the reins of govern
ment last week and comments there
on by the Wilmington Messenger.
That paper says:
In his remarks to the aldermen on
Thursday Mayor Waddell touched
upon several important matters.
Some of these we wish to especially
emphasize. The first is on the poll
tax question. This tax in our city is
entirely too high. 1t is burdensOme
on the poor man. While the cOnsti-
tutiOnal equation may be observed
still it is out of all proportion to the
amount OF tax the property owner
has to pay. The idea of making the
man who OWNS no property and who
depends on his daily labor for sup
port OF himself and family pay over
six dollars for poll tax-nearly four
dollars of this going to the city. This
ispreposterous. The mayorexpresses
the views of this paper when he de-
clares that the city poll tax should
be only one dollar. Such law would
be just and we believe, as he says,
that the city would lose nothing by
reducing it to that figure. We here
reproduce what the mayor said on
this subject in order that our readers
may have further opportunity oil
giving it careful consideration:
''The poll tax in this city is $3.50
and for State and county purposes it
is 81 43, making the total poll tax
S6.O9. The Supreme Court of North
Carolina has expressly decided in two
cases-the last one, Wingate VS.. Par
ker, having been decided last Novem
be1-that the provision in the State
Constitution requiring proportions
ate poll and property tax does not
apply to municipal corporations.
That provision Of the Constitution
required that the poll tax should be
equal to the tax on property, valued
at $500 in cash, and the impression
generally prevailed that it applied te
the municipal as we'll as to the Stat.
and county poll tax; but the Supreme
Court says it does not and therefore
the tax is discretionary with eacf
municipality unless its charter pro
vides otherwise. The charter of Viii
minton provides no such provision
L am in favor of reducing the city
poll tax to one dollar, not only be
cause the present tax is oppressiv,
on many people, but because abou
as much revenue will be obtained a.
is now collected"