The Morris County chronicle. [volume] (Morristown, N.J.) 1877-1915, 1909-01-19
NEW JERSEYS
FINANCES
[coNTINUED FROM FIRsT PAGE. !


There are no other sources of posi-
BILE income for the state that can meet
increasing demands, except it come
from these two sources, or the railway
tax be entirely abandoned and direct
state tax substituted.
If the direct state tax method be
adopted then, Of course, chapter 146
of the laws of 1906 which directs the
payment of all the tax on main stem,
personal property and franchises of
the railways, in excess of the amount
produced by one-half of / per cent,
to the counties for apportionment
among the school districts falls, and
all school taxes, except the present
direct state tax for school purposes of
234 mills, will be required to be raised
locally
The state will. under the direct tax
system, collect only sufficient taxes to
meet the demands of the state govern
ment.
There has been much agitation in the
state for the taxation of railroad prop
erty locally at local rates, and if we
are to come to state tax that should
be done Under a direct state tax for
state purposes it would seem that it
must be done, because otherwise there
is no excuse for the present system of
railway taxation When that sys-
tenn was devised in 1884 it was to re-
lieve the individual property of the
state from any state tax and to sup
port the state government by tax on
railroad property only. Up to 1906 the
system devised in 1884 had worked
we'll Every thoughtful man must adj
init it has been a good system. Under
the acts of 1905 and 1906, known as
the Duffield and Perkins acts respec-
lively, large increases in taxation
rightly occurred insboth first and Sec
ond class property. In 1908 the tax
on the main stem, tangible personal
property and the franchises of rail
ways alone produced So 900, 644.44 and
yet the state for its uses and purposes
received less than 100000 more in
1908 than it did in 1885 from this class
of property.
Prior to 1906 the tax on the main
stem, tangible personal property and
franchises was limited to one-half of
a per centum, and that year it was
raised to the average tax rate through
out the state. Notwithstanding all
this increase in the rate chapter 146
of the laws of 1906 expressly limits
the state for all time to so much of
the railway taxes as will be produced
by one-half of / per centum-that is
no matter how the state increases in
population, in the needs for its courts,
in it's penal and charitable institutions,
in the legislature and in it's many de-
partments its revenue must remain
stationary. No more, no less, as the
years go on.
l am opposed to a direct state tax
IL the act of 1906 can be repealed or
modified; otherwise / recommend a
direct tax for state purposes and the
abolition of our present railroad taxa
ton system and the taxation of all
railway property Of every class locally
at local rates and for local purposes.
The recommendation for direct
state tax for state purposes is NOT
made because l believe it wise, bur
because chapter 146 of the laws Of
1906 has made this course absolutely
necessary If that law is to stand I'M
modified or unrepealed
From the tax of 1908 on the assessed
value of the main stem, tangible per-
sonal property and franchises Of tbs
railways, at the average rate of 1905,
over $3,200,O00 was produced but
about $2,230,000 Of this sum must be
drawn from the state treasury for To-
cal distribution under chapter 146 of
the laws Of 1906 no matter what the
needs of the state may be.
No cause seems to have existed Tor
the passage Of this act that Is founded
either In reason or a sound public poi,
Icy In fact its provisions are in exact
conflict with section / of chapter 401
of the laws of 1895 and directly OPP
posed to the state policy declared in
that act and in every appropriation
act passed from 1895 to 1906, all of
which declared that no funds should
be paid out of the treasury Of the
state except such as were annually
appropriated by law.
These acts enunciate the right pol
Icy No act should ever be passed
forestalling the action of future leg
islature All such legislation only cin-
barasses the state financially and pro
notes no good end. Every just claim
upon the state treasury can safely rely
upon fair consideration at the hands
of the legislature.
The9aet of 1906 has answered no use
ful purpose. Nothing has been done
under it that would not have been
done without it.
There is no lack of money coming
into the treasury. In fact, there is
large surplus over all necessities If the
limitation on its use by chapter 146
of the act of 1906 were removed. If
this act of 1906 We're modified or re-
pealed the legislature could provide for
all the reasonable and necessary needs
of the state and have large surplus
to annually appropriate to the public
schools The only objection urged
against the repeal of chapter 146, laws
OF 1906 that have heard is the claim
that its repeal will leave large sur
plus In the state treasury and that the
legislature will be extrayagant and
wasteful in appropriations as result.