Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1917-02-15

statement,
standard of the terms which the general property tax IS
condemned TO the same may be cited Professor EDWIN
In Sigman of Columbia University another great authory
Professor Richard T. Ely the u S. Industrial COMMISSION
the Massachusetts, Tax Commission Of 1905 y 5 supreme
Court in Pacific Express Co. Seber 42 u s. $751; B. W
McInre Chairman of Board Of State Assessors Every
tax authority with whom have conferred and every COM
unicaton received upon this particular question have am
swered in the same way.
Nor in the found for research upon this phase OF e
ease have we been able to find single authority that approves
of the system of general property tax
But it might be said that experts become theorists and
are not always practical their conclusions and recommended
on but in answer to this it may be said that not only do the
eminent authorities above quoted condemn this system but al
careful investigation will show that the practical men who COM
p the commissions the different states OF the Unon
are SO far as been able discover unanimous IN their
concurrence the opinion of the tax experts upon this ques
ton Also the abandonment of this system and the adopon
of new methods of taxing intangible property to be found mi
Massachusetts, Rhode Island Pennsy Maryland WIS
consn and Minnesota and the agitation most of the other
states favor of REFORM all support the conclusion that le
general property tax plan should go.
Except for the purpose of showing the broad field of expert
and practical opinion upon this question: would be unneces
say 60 aside for argument the history and development
of legislation in state both interesting and IN
upon the desiraby otherwise of abandoning hel
general property plan and adopting some new method OF
taxing intangible property for the first time made permissible
under the amendment 1t unnecessary
to 60 detail call mind the opposition with which every
progressive this has been met by the
classes Of property be affected Reference will be made to-
but few of the important efforts which have been made
from time time to reach property and business that were not
bearing their proporonae share of the public burdens Years
ago proposed the railroads upon the basis of their
mileage and gross earnings All possible arguments made
against it. and particularly against the scheme which was elias
and could be stretched whenever proper to increase the
from this of taxation The law however, was
passed. but the opposition did not until met with an ad
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States
Yet this law although increasing the rate from time to time
has operated fairly both the railroads and to the people
The proposed laws for the taxation of insurance companies
telephone companies, telegraph companies of corporate fran
he of express companies all enacted in the face oil
arguments offered to show only that the various schemes
practcabe but that the itself unjust and bur
desome. And when the inheritance law proposed 1T
was with strenuous opposition.
Yet notwithstanding the predictions the contrary these
laws, improved from time time by amendment have all oper
ated smoothly and equab and produced very large amount
of income the and municipalities that would otherwise
have been levied visible property already taxed the limit
and prudent person would for suggest their abo
lon Similar opposition is voiced by many the present time
either income level intangible property
It is also clearly apparent that the accomplished action of
its legislation unerrngy points the dsap
pova by people, Of the general property tax Pror
o 1875 Constitution required only the taxation of rea
Under this tangible personal PROPERTY
evadng and escaping fair proportion of To
remedy this in 1875 amendment adopted COM
polling the taxation of personal From that time this
tangible personal property has been generally taxed The
amendment intended and did include all personal estate
Tangible and intangible But the difficulty arose
regarding the discovery of intangible property after 1876 that
had prevailed in regard finding tangible personal property
before 1875 Hence forthwith began agitation for the adop
ton of change in the law that would make conpulsory
the disclosure of intangible property This agitation may bel
said to have eliminated 1891 when the Maine House of Rep
esenatves by large ority passed drastic listing bill
which defeated the Senate by only that
given by who believed in the bill but yielded to the great
brought to bear before the We particularly refer
this spirited contest for the purpose of introducing the
ention Of the participants upon the side and the other
The urgent argument at this time favor of the listing
measure that such law would compel the disclosure of
Stocks bonds at interest and other securities to tax
alton like other property The potent argument against the
listing BILL at this time by the holders large small of
Intangible property, that the then Of taxation would
be disastrous small holders without other sources of mcconnell
for living and unfair to large holders and that change
should be made in the fundamental law would permit Of the