Evening journal., 1913-01-17

NN~' fbAA0 Va al bAAO c'RA'f WoA'' t'A'N
merchandise and Of all articles and
materials. of every nature and sub
b stance whatsoever, produced or manu-
factured The license fee was $500
for the first 81 600 or less and an ad-
ditional charge of one-tenth Of one
per cent on each S1OO in excess Of
the first $1,000. The Act Of March
12, 1901, changed both the base and
the rate of the tax. This latter Act
made the base of taxation the aggre-
gate cost value of all the real and per-
sonal property located in this State
"and used in the production or manu-
facture" and left the rate for the first
$1,000 or less as before but altered
= it to one-twentieth of one per cent.
between the 81 900 and S3,O00,00O; one
fortieth of one per cent. between So
100000 and S5,00O,000 and $4,000 for
each Sl,000.O00 or part thereof in ex-
. cess Of s5,OOO.OOO.
= Whatever may have been the effect
on the revenue of this change of base,
, the change in the lowering Of the rate
resulted, of course, In consequent
decrease Of the funds received by the
State from this particular source. For
example, in 1900, when the old law
was in force, the State received from
the manufacturers tax the sum of
$21 6fS.64 For 1901. being after the
change of the law, the State received
from the same source the sum of S11,-
4, 46S76 and for 1902, the sum Of S10,-
20619
It is common knowledge that the
amendment Of March -. 1901, was
= made at the instance OF the manu-
: facturers themselves They contend
ed that the statement required by the
: old law gave an undesirable publicity
/ to their private business and exposed
I their affairs to competitors.
!. It is TO be noted that practically
o every State in the Union extends more
s or less favor to the domestic manu-
v facturer His position is somewhat
= different from that which Is occupied
J. by those engaged In other trades, fol
T. he more than most others, has tC
D. compete not only with rivals in the
!. same community. but with those over
n the entire country. The State, there.
y fore, which wishes to attract the
y foreign manufacturer, and to retain
d those already established must to q
= certain extent. at least, pay regard
to the advantages and inducements
II offered by her sister States This Is
l. not because of any inherent merit in
J. the business of manufacturing above
q those of other industries. The fact re-
If mains that States and even local COM
v munities appear to have found it ad-
visable to offer inducements to the
a manufacturer who will settle there
n At the last United States census the
4 capital employed in manufacturing
Y in Delaware is given at the sum ol
u $6O,905,671.0O
ie IL follows that care must he taker
n in dealing with the manufacturing
-e tax law in order not 10 discourag,
IS the establishment of new plants here
r. nor to lead to the removal of those
@ already established Many of oui
m sister commonwealths exempt manu-
\ facturors from any State tax. but i
IS is to be borne in mind that in most
N il not all Of the States, the manufac
r turer pays for local purposes take,
IL, which he is exempted from payini
NJ in Delaware. The theory of the oil
y law was not the subsection to taxa
~ ton Of the manufactured product bu
n the taxation Of the business income
5e as determined by the aggregate cos
=, value of the product OF the business
~ It is equally clear that the object O
is the amendment of 1901 was merely {
- change the standard or measure o
-, the profits for taxing purposes. il
~ other words, il was not designed Il
- tax land for State purposes simpl
because it was used by a manufac
? turer II must be admitted however
: that the standard set up by thi
y amendment has fallen far short o
u' proving a satisfactory index to incom
lt aI ..r. ~,.os,ts
ne facturer who purchased his plan
II years ago when real estate was low
u gains an unfair advantage over a com
se petitor who paid more for a propert.
ID worth less. Furthermore. we are in
&c formed, that some manufacturers whit
ne rent the real estate upon which thei
plants are located have been actini
N under the construction Of the amend
he ed law that they need not includ
10 the value Of such real property in tn
le statement, which forms the basis o
Of their tax. The consequence has beef
l. loss of revenue to the State and
re discrimination against a manufac
nj turer who owns his plant
x At the last session of the Legisla
TX ture the Commission recommends
Of certain changes in the Manufactur
IL ers' Law, which they thought wouli
ct simplify the law and prevent eva
lt sions which had hitherto existed bu
r. the contrary has been the effect. Tn
AT Commission has held many hearings
v TO which the manufacturers of th
q State have been invited and have as
N certained that the present law is mos
10 unsatisfactory and unpopular Il
- order that the revenues of the Stat
might not be decreased. they hav
compared statistics showing the prob
"a able receipts under the present Law
~ and one based on payment OF one
., fiftieth of one per cent. of the gros
~ receipts, and find that with the aver
a. age manufacturer the payment woul
io be about the same. there would b
as no opportunity for evasion and
l large majority of the manufacturer
Iu consulted have approved OF this sys
er tenn. In consequence thereof thi
nc Commission would most respectful
q recommend that the entire law no,
he governing the manufacturers licens
ht be repealed. and in lieu thereof, tn
Mt one as above cited be enacted.
a Excise.
Id The Commission has labored dill
te gently on the Excise question and ha
It. endeavored to produce a bill tina
rs would be fair to those engaged i
Is this business and yet raise an ade
MS quate revenue for the State. an
It. would recommend that the price Of
nd license to keep an inn or tavern shal
TO remain as at present and that tn
lis special license to sell intoxicatin
10 Ifo,orc in 1occ ouonfiffoc than On