The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-09-11
Taxation in Virginia
Licenses f7s9-fS80.-V. How National Iar1r
Policy Found Expression in Wig ina
State Taxation.
ny EDGAR sYDENsTRICKEF

Although the insertion of the topic suggested
in the above title may interrupt the continuity
of our study Of the development of the present
license tax in Virginia, and of the real Begin
nlngs Of the corporation tax which. we snail see,
grew out of the license tax. feel that II 10 OF
more than passing interest to note two particular
license taxes and a special license tax provision
To those familiar with the history OF sectional
ism in antebellum Virginia, it VIII douotiess oe
an Interesting hit Of evidence that mas not oeen
treated of in Virginia historical writings While
TO observers and students of the relation OF
State to federal government. the apparent at
tempt on the part of a State to take part in the
enforcement of national tariff policy may be
a side-light worthy of recording
These two license taxes and this provision,
moreover were not only illustrative of tho ten
dency 10 extend the license tax and to use II for
a purpose other than that Of obtaining revenue.
as was seen in the increase in taxes on lotteries
prior to the constitution of 1851 but they ex-
hibit the sectionalism within Virginia on natonal
polttical questions The two taxes to which ref
erence Is made are: % A tax upon merchants
and auctioneers who sold articles OF domestic
growth. e. growth in the United states. such
articles included lumber coal and tobacco, which
are specifically mentioned A tax OF sZo was
imposed upon dealers in commodities or this
character for their first years business Tor sue
Ceeding years an annual tax OF one per cent o.
gross sales imposed. The tax was designed
to encourage the sale of goods of domestic pro-
duction since. as shall see later on. It was
considerably lower than the license tax required
of those dealing in other commodities; CD
tax rough frame work as the schedule ex-
pressed It, was designed to encourage the impor-
tation from foreign countries articles in an I'M
finished state of manufacture to be sold here
later in a completed state. This tax was $50
annually a considerably lower tax than the reg
uar tax merchants aucuoneers and other
general dealers.
We see no mention of these two taxes In the
tax laws thereafter. and It is presumable that
they were no longer levied after the tax act Of
the 1856 session of the assembly went into
effect. But that assembly included in Its tax
act a provision which Is extremely interesting
1t was provided that If any goods cold by a
dealer-the gross sales being the basis for the
graduated tax, as we shall see-Were imported
goods a reduction to be made in the amount
of taxes paid their sale equal to the duties
paid the federal customs officers. The purpose
Of this, is quite evident. was to nullify the
effect Of the existing federal tariff laws.
I Unfortunately the records, official in the
newspa pers are not full enough to afford an ex-
PLANTATION Of the apparently wide difference in
purposes that actuated the provisions OF the tax
act OF 1884 and that Of 1S65-56. And yet
there Is In them all similarity OF purpose
The controlling element in the legislatures UNI
/ der the constitution OF 1891 prior 20 the e!Sn
war was composed of representatives OF the
western section of the State, large portion or
which is West Virginia, who were opposed
! to the principle of protection. The eastern sec
/ ton of Virginia inclined to favor protection.
For instance, President Tyler's opposition ten
years before to the Wing tariff program caused
many of his followers to desert him. There Is
| evidence OF decided nature in the press OF the
day that Eastern Yirginians at that time were
in favor Of higher tariff duties and citizens OF
Richmond and It's vicinity signed petition TO
! congress asking for higher tariff Again. near
/ ly fifteen years later, there is evidence that
even under the distinctly non-protectionstic
tariff of 1S46s the western section or the State
was In favor of a still lower tariff. Especially
was this true as Professor Amber points out
In his book on Sectionalism In Virginia Up. 305)
of those who animated by the broad prin-
ciples laid down by jefferson and of those who
were actuated by the more practical question
of a cheap iron to be used in the construction
of railroads in the internal improvement schemes
of the times. These We're the victors in the
campaign of 1885, in which Henry A. Wise killed
Knowno thingism in Virginia, and the
dominant party in the legislative halls
j In the light of this fact. then may inter
pref the license tax provisions OF 1S53-54 ex-
pressions of a consistent policy-that of encour.
aging home production without the of g
protective tarff-which further carried out
in the provisions of 1S55-56 more directly In
an effort to nullify the tariff. What effect any
of these provisions had upon the revenue oil
Virginia cannot be ascertained from the records
1t is. of course, absurd to imagine that they had
any effect the prices OF the mmodities con.
cerned. In fact other than tighten the license
tax to degree impossible to be known, the
provisions nothing more than an expire ssior
of the views of the dominant faction in Virgins
| at the time national question which had
practically ceased TO be of interest nationally
but upon which the newly empowered faction
in Virginia first had opportunity to record
although futilely, its opinion.