Year: 1879

! in the manner proposed would virtually de-
cree the expulsion of foreign capital here
employed. 1t is not the policy, assuredly, OF
| this State to place its railway companies at
a disadvantage in the severe competition with
| trunk lines of other States to which they are
now subjected Yet the pending bills would
unquestiOnably impose upon the railways ol
| New York burdens very far in excess of those
borne by railways in Pennsylvania or III
MARYLAND, or by the competing trunk lines
in Canada. This is not question OF interest
solely TO individual owners. 1t affects the terms
upon which the corporations are able to do
business. 1t atfects-and if other of the pending
laws would pass would materially aflect-the
| terms upon which the City of New York can
participate in the commerce of the continent
in competition with Philadelphia or Baltimore
or Montreal.


Millions Of foreign capital are employed
here in banking. Certainly no legislator
would seriously propose by enactment to drive
out OF this State the capital so employed.
This great city has been built up. and ITS vast
commerce sustained and extended, III large
degree 10y the fact that here the capital from
other countries has found free and rcmunera-
tive employment. Ii is difficult TO estimate





the disadvantages to every branch OF indus
irv and to all the commerce of this city and
State which would result from any enactment
tending to deprive such capital of employment
at fair rates. But if must be remembered that
the owner of such capital, if living in Nevada
rs an owner in the Bank of Nevada, or III
Montreal, or in other States of the Union, or
in Europe, is subject to taxation where be re-
sides, and for the property which he employs
IN New-YOrk. TO tax him there, in prOpor-
ton as property may there be taxed, and
again in New-York upon the same property,
in proportion as other property may here be
taxed, would subject him to loss sufficient
in many cases to drive the capital ut his COM
mand ont of employment here. In general
terms, this objection holds good against either
of the bills now pending i'll the Legislature.
Neither of them is so framed as to avoid the
double taxation of property owned by non
residents and employed in this State and
neither of them avoids the double taxation OF
property owned by residents of this State but
employed in works and enterprises located III
other States


The radical difficulty is in the system which
exists in this State. An attempt was made





by Governor Hoffman. of which Mr.. Wells
was chairman, to devise wiser system OF
taxation, and the methods proposed by the
Commission as well as its reasonings, have
received much less attention than they de-
serve. The Legislature ought to bear IN mind
that the changes now proposed in the
methods of taxation will very Sc
rously affect many important interests,
and will probably involve great controversy
and litigation, and vii, yet leave untouched,
in all probability, the most serious evil of
which there is complaint. As long as real
estate is directly taxed upon assessment of
value and an attempt is also made to catch
and locate personal property for taxation the
most serious injustice will inevitably follow.
The existing system is a discredlt to New
York. 1t is behind the age, and tends to re-
tard the progress of this city. But neither OF
the measures proposed seems to reach the root
OF the difficulty. and it Is hardly worth while
to expose the State and individuals to much
litigation and loss without eilectinS a real and
thorough improvement