The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-08-23
orn FISCAL wILL-o.-1HE-wIsp.

OUT FISCAL WlLL-O'-IYiE-WIS
| Says our distinguished oontempor-
AIRY. tho Nirginian- Pilot. very cour-
teously:
The Richmond Times Dispatch sum-
| marily disposes OF the segregation
| theory of taxation as "a necting will
o'-tho wisp. which has been aban-
doncd after bitter experience by all
who have pursued it," This is n pretty
broad assertion. and IL It is justified
by the facts, rhc Times dispatch will
do the State of Virginia n service by
instancing tho communities in this
country which have tried the principle
of segregation with disastrous results.
We we're under tho impression that
PENNSYLVANIA. which was among tho
frst OF the states to adopt the system,
had found IL n great Improvement on
former methods.
We gladly do so Only two States
in the Union have given complete sep
aration :, long and thorough test.
These are Connecticut and New York.
The former State abolished the general
batticd on for twenty years in an at
tempt To maintain the separation OF
state and local revenues. Despite the
efforts of some of the best tax au-
,horites of the United States, the
principle had to be abandoned in 1911
against the plan as proposed in vir-
gina: 1t was too inelastic.
New York made an even drawer fight
for separation, but with all Its cor
porate wealth, was forced the same
year to return to the multiple taxation
able 10 make separation complete nor
/ has New Jersey, while Pennsylvania.
the state 10 which our contemporary
refers reached it's system OF separa-
tion by long and gradual steps. It
now has no state lax on either rcal
State taxes imposed on property also
taxed by the localities.
IN fact. the only state in the Union
which now has in force system OF
complete separation, such as is p,>o-
posed for Virginia, is California. and
this system. introduced in 1911. has
not been on trial long enough to sho,v
its" worth. 1t Is significant, however,
that even in this instance. the state
Of California is facing an enormous
deficit. For these facts and for n
deal Of light on the subject. We would
refer our contemporary to the Pro-
ccedinEs Of the First and Fifth Nation
al Conferences on Taxation. to the
Quarterly Journal Of Economics, Vol
NN1N.. to the paper by Professor Bull
lock at the Fourth Annual Conference
Of the League OF Virginia Municipali-
ties and to the recent reports of the
Rhode Island Tax Commission of 1910,
the New York Tax Commission OF 1911,
and the Oregon Tax Commission of
1911.
Above all else, we would refer the
Nirginian- Eliot 10 the last edition
(l9i$) of Professor Seligmans Essays
In TaXation." This book is written by
the inan who is generally ranked rs
Americas leading authority on taxa
ton. the man who probably did more
than any other to give popularity to
the principle of separation. But in
'''S No+V'ile' icNleWlDB QeNelcprnGntS
of the last five years. DIR. Seligman
reaches this conclusion: Judging,
however. from the experience or New
York and Connecticut, there is grave
danger that, unless the system is
rounded out by some method designat-
ed to secure elasticity, separation Will
not be permanently achieved" tpage
1922. If this is the view of the one
man above all others who gave separa :
ton its place in economic thought,
what must he the. views of men like
Commissioners Galloway. of Oregon,
and Corbin, Of Connecticut, who have
tasted its bitter fruits?
We would ask our brother, on this
showing, if separation does not seem
TO him "will-o' -wisp."