Year: 1879

idence of the owner. and that 1t fs
equally rs equitable and reasonable TO tax
extra-territOrIal real estate as 1t IS to
tax extra-territora business and personal property.
Is possible that the Legislature of the great
State of NcwYOrk can seriously contemplate tue
enactment of a statute which will burden ana OBJ
Struct her citizens in owning personal property.
granting credits or doing business "a credit i5 a
necessary incident of nearly all Dusiness IN other
States; and which the courts Will unquestlouabD
declare unconstitutional. and therefore lnopera-
tive, soon as II can be brought DoIofe tncm loi
consideration.


INCONSISTENCY or THE Bills.


II should be further pointed out that these pend
inc tax bills embody entirely inconsistent and in-
harmonious principles, inasmuch as they provide
that if personal property owned by nOn-residens Is
within the State the rule shall he that personal
property does not follow the person or owner; but
if the property is without the State and the owner
within the State, then that the rule shall be exactly
reversed and that personal property III such cases
shall follow the owner. This proposed legislation
seems to he based the ethics and theory OF tIc
Italian brigands. wfo selze goods aud effects when
ever they find them within their grasp, and IN the
absence of such goods and effects their owner
and hold him in durcss for ransom proportloned To
the value of his goods, effects and credits which
are beyond their jurisdiction.


Both of the tax bills before the Legislature and
the present law if enforced, would be devoid of all
uniformity in respect to the taxation of the shares
of the capita stock of old corporations other than
mOneyed corporations. The RUE proposed ana IKE
wise now existing requires the value of the real
estate to be deducted from the value of the shares
of corporation but in tie case of corporation
owing a large bonded or other debt, the market
vauo of the shares very frequently does not equal
the cost or assessed value OF the real estate Under
such rule, therefore, one corporation lIcc from
debt may he enormously burdcncd on l's shaIeS'
wnle another corporation of the same class, and
whose property Of equal value. and whose busi-
ness is equally productive, may pay 10 tax what
ever on the value of its shares or capital stock.
is there any equity in ths' Again. does 1t not
violate the law of uniformity the property OF
manufacturing corporations b. a different rule from
that applied to the property of individual manuiac-
tuYers Manufacturing corporations haye 10 pecu-
liar mOnOpOlios privileges TO enable them To Dear
a discriminating tax not imposed upon their Indl-
yidua competitors and heavy tax on such cor
porations caunot be dilfuSed their manufactured
products so long as such products in open
competition with lightly or wholly uhthAcu plo-
ducts OF private persons.


TAX oN RAILROAD CORPORATIONS


Nor is there any reason why q discriminating tax
sbould be levied on railroad corporations. Such
CORPORATIONS are not monopolics in the State of
New-York, as there is general railroad law IN the
State and anybody can build and operate rail-
road within its territory. The great trunk lines OF
New-lOrk compete in the Western markets for
freight in competition with the Grand Trunk Road
Of Canada, which is only taxed on its realty at an
extremely low valuation, and with the Pennsyl-
vana Central, which is not taxed on ITS road-bed
at all, and but moderately taxed in any other form
as compared with the taxes imposed on railroads IN
New-Yorl or with the Baltimore and Ohio Rail
road which is subjected to merely nominal taxation.


CHICAGO indianapolis st. Louis, Cincinnati. and
other great Western centres where the lines ot rail-
road running to New Orleans. Savannah, Norfolk.
BALTIMORE, Philadelphia, New-Iork Boston ana
Montreal are all immediate competitors IN the open
market for the business of transmitting freight to
he conveyed TO Europe and all this freight must by
natural laws follow the cheapest route. But The
burden of taxation the railroads Of tie state OF
NewiOrk, even as imposed now almost exclusively
upon their real estate, Is heavier burden than Is
at present imposed on the competing lines OF similar
value aud capacity IN other states. with freght5
reduced at present to a minimum of profit, and at
times TO starvation point the rule OF the survival
of the fiuest is it wise for NewYork TO impose dis
eliminating burdens, az compared with other prop
ertv upon her railroads. and thus give advantage
TO competing lines in other states and IN Canadaf


Such are some If the inconsistent, irrational and
dangerous features of the tax measures now before
the Ncw-York Legislature. Dad space suffice. others
equally initiating against the property and material
development of the State might be pointed out.
Bnt enough. it would seem, has been offered in the
way of evidence to prove, as claimed IN tie outset
of this communication, that no radical changes IN
the existing tax laws Of NeW-YOrk should be made
without giving the public the fullest opportunity
for their consideration and understanding. And
such opportunity and unders tandlng the citizens ui
New-York have not rs yot been put IN possessonOf.
TAXATION or PERSONAL PROPERTY.


The fact Is, the system of taxation of personal
property in New-Yorl is almost dead. Ii has ont
lived its usefulness and is in state of material de-
cav ANY attempt 10 revive and enforce it, must
therefore DO regarded as almost revolutionary
measure. In England, in 1880, when the local taxes
on personal property were first suspended and the
tax was confined exclusively TO occuplers of real es
tate it was found that the previously collected tax
on personal property was less than 10 per cent of
the taxation imposed the occupers of realty !;
and that the change resulting was almost mper-
ccptible from a revenue point of view, but some
thing immense In the resulting freedom from in
OuIsiton annoyance and uncertainty. Now IN New
York the assessment OF individuals for personal
property is less than one-enth of tho assessment
of real estate and tho State Assessors report that
less than five per cent OF the mortgages of the State
are practically made subject to taxation and the
removal of tho individual personal tax III New-York
would therefore, not amount 10 any radical change
in respect to revenue but would, was tho case III
England, prove Of great benefit through resulting
cheaper money or capital aud in an additional
value to land employed in tho production OF un-
taxed agricultural commodities and unta1ed man
ufacturcd articles. There never has been devised
any system Of taxing items of personal property.
which will act uniformly, "A the taxing OF TINS
class Of property through the medium aud agency
of real estate. Land can be made the sub-iax col
loctor Ii will collect taxes from all articles of
production and consumption; and the burden of
the tax on tho personal property will be in proper