A Journal of the Proceedings of the House of Representatives of the ... General Assembly of the State of Florida, at Its ... Session

"1. The subjects (citizens) of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the Government, as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities.

"2. Every tax ought to be levied at the time or in the manner in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it For convenience of arrangement I shall first speak of the latter proposition.

Probably the period fixed by law for the collection of taxes, in Florida is a little too early in the Fall. Though the time at which they are actually collected is not so objectionable, still it might be a relief to a great many tax payers to have the time of payment extended to the first of November. Beyond this period it could not be extended without producing inconveniences to the financial and legislative concerns of the State, while, on the other hand, by this extension, and by allowing the revenue officers one more week for ma king their settlements, and by making the fiscal, conterminus with the calendar year, tax payers and tax collectors would both be relieved.

It is said that the 4th Monday of November was fixed on as the last day for the revenue officers to make their settlements, in order to afford them, in the absence of other facilities, an opportunity to remit by members of the Assembly. The moderate extension I propose would increase this accommodation; but still, as the Assembly meets only once in two years, some additional relief ought to be given to those who are barely compensated for the trouble of collecting merely.

The per diem and mileage allowed to members of the Assembly, would be but a reasonable compensation to those officers, and I would respectfully recommend that it be allowed, in those years in which the Assembly does not convene, to all who shall settle punetually. This would render the mode of compensation more equitable than the present one, which, in effect, makes a considerable difference between those who reside near, and others who are more or less remote from the capitol.

Although the adoption of these proposed modifications of the revenue system would not enable the Treasury officers to present to the Assembly at the commencement of each session a more complete view of the public finances than is attainable under existing regula tions, it would not, nay, it could not, increase the difficulty of doing what is already impracticable. The fiscal year now terminates nearly a month before the revenue is payable at the Treasury; and the Comptroller and Treasurer are obliged to prepare their reports before the day of such payment arrives, because the Assembly meets on that day; hence important information which is expected in those reports cannot be imparted by them. They may contain full statements for the first three quarters of the year; and, by requiring supplemental reports to be made, as soon as practicable after the close of the fourth quarter, the Assembly may effect an object, that cannot otherwise be attained, without neglect of one of the maxims that has been quoted, and consequent disregard of the convenience the great body of tax-payers.

The most important of the maxims referred to above remains to be considered, in connection with the revenue system of Florida. "The subjects (citizens) of every State," says Adam Smith, ought to contribute towards the support of the Government, as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities."

The people of Florida have established a Constitution, in which this maxim is recognized in the words following: "The General Assembly shall devise and adopt a system of revenue, having regard to an equal and uniform mode of taxation throughout the State,'

Now arises the question-What is the meaning of the word equal in the foregoing sentence? Unquestionably it means "in just proportion," or, in the language of Adam Smith, "as nearly as possible in proportion to the respective abilities" of the citizens of the State.

Has the General Assembly devised and adopted a system of revenue that conforms with the requisition of the Constitution? Does the tax on land so conform ?

For the purpose of taxation, the Assembly has assumed that there are in Florida only three classes of land; and on the first class, or rate, is imposed a tax of eleven mills; on the second, a tax of eight and a quarter mills; and on the third, a tax of four and an eighth mills. All lands, therefore, in the State, owned by individuals, must be assessed under one of these three classes.

In December, 1849, while Register of Public Lands, I sold a large quantity of School lands. In Leon County the prices varied from $14 60 down to $1 50 per acre; and if price, at auction, be any criterion of value, or quality, upwards of thirty qualities were sold in this county; yet, whilst the qualities differ nearly as 10 to 1, the land worth $1 50 pays more than one-third as much tax as that worth $14 60.

But in some other counties the inequality is still more glaring. For example: In Marion and Alachua Counties there are numerous tracts that would sell for $12 to $15 per acre; while there are thousands of acres, owned by individuals, that could not be sold for five cents; yet these latter are taxed more than one-third as much as the former !

The effect of this mode of assessment, if continued, will be tantamount to that of an act of confiscation; for no sane man will continue to pay a tax which, in a few years, would exceed the fee simple value of his land; and as no one would buy such land, the State must become the proprietor; and is it good policy for the State to become the proprietor of an immense domain that will yield no revenue? Would it not be more politic, as well as more just, to impose a tax in proportion to the value of the land, and thus derive some profit from what would otherwise be utterly unproductive?

But the inequality of the present system is not confined to the land tax. Slaves are all taxed alike-55 cents-no matter how they differ in age or in value. This is not only out of just proportion, in relation to their comparative value, but also in relation to the tax on other property. For instance-a slave worth $800 is taxed only 55 cents; while town property of the same value pays $1 76; and Appendix 17

100 acres of land, though it may be worth $2,000, pays only II mills per acre, which amounts to $1 10.

But again: Lawyers, Physicians, Pilots, Public Weighers and Inspectors, have to pay an income tax-a tax of twenty-two cents on every $100 of their incomes! Why are these five classes of citi zens set apart as the subjects of the most odious of all species of taxes? Further: A merchant, whose stock is worth only $30,000, has to pay a tax of $66; while a planter, who may own one hundred slaves worth $30,000, and 2,000 acres of land worth $20,000 more, pays a tax of $77 only.

The owner of a saw mill worth $10,000, pays a tax of $22; bat the owner of a factory, though it may be worth $50,000, is not taxed one mill.

Enough has been stated to show the utter want of equality in the revenue system; and if it be unequal, it is unconstitutional.

At a period when Great Britain was engaged in a contest with that extraordinary man, who "made crowns his "play things," and when all of her unparalelled ordinary resources were found inade quate to the demands of the great crisis, one of her most illustrious statesmen proposed a new tax-a tax on incomes. A late eminent historian of that country has remarked of that tax:

"A greater financial error never was committed." * "The tax falls with excessive severity on one class, and with unreasonable lightness upon others; it extinguishes the infant accumula tions of capital, and puts an end to the savings of laborious industry, while it is comparatively unfelt by the great capitalist and the opulent landed proprietor."

Great as may have been that error, it was small, as to principle, compared to the partial one of a similar kind to which I have adverted. The income tax of England was general, and was, perhaps, defensible, by the tyrant's plea, necessity.

But the income tax of Florida is imposed upon five only of the numerous occupations, and these not the most prosperous and money making. It is imposed, too, in a time of profound peace, (unless the BOWLEGS affair may be considered a warlike emergency,) and while the finances of the Commonwealth are not unprosperous, compared with those of any other State.

Should it not be at once abolished? And ought not the whole system to be revised, and made to conform, as nearly as practicable, with the maxim that has been indicated?

But it may be asked how can this be done; By substituting the ad valorem principle-a per centage tax on the valuation of every species of property, excepting some of the most trifling kinds.

It may be alleged in opposition to this mode that it is impractica ble; but experience proves the contrary. In many, if not all the States, Florida among the number, the ad valorem system has been adopted partially; in some of the States, to the exclusion of every other mode; and our near neighbor, Georgia, among other eviden ces that she is giving of the prevalence of an enlightened policy in her councils, at the last session of her Assembly abolished all other modes, and adopted the ad valorem.

Whatsoever arguments may be plausibly urged against it in the imposition of duties on imports, they are totally inapplicable to it in the assessing and levying of direct taxes.

It may be argued, however, that a tax on every kind of property would bear hard upon the poor; but it would be easy to provide against any such hardship by exempting a certain amount, as in the case of the cattle tax; and this could be done without an invidious distinction between the luxurious rich man and the hard-working poor, by making the exemption general; which would relieve the wealthy in the same amount, though not relatively to the same degree, that it would the indigent man; for the obvious reason that the tax on a few hundred dollars worth of property would be an insignificant trifle to the man of large income, whilst it would be felt by the one who makes bread for his family "in the sweat of the face." There are some subjects of taxation to which the ad valorem principle cannot be applied-such, for instance, as taverns, shops for retailing liquors, &c. These, however, are not taxed exclusively as property, and, therefore, the Legislature may very properly exercise, in regard to them, a discretion limited only by a due respect for public sentiment and sound policy.

The policy of taxing agencies of Foreign Insurance Companies is very questionable. The capital of such companies, being beyond the State's jurisdiction, cannot be taxed; and the tax imposed on premiums received by the agencies falls ultimately upon property of citizens of the State, which is taxed directly in another form.

Under existing circumstances the insufficiency of domestic capital for the ordinary purposes of trade, and the want of local banks to supply the deficiency-the tax on drafts and bills of exchange is another of doubtful policy. This tax, however, is so small that it probably has no effect, or very little, upon the price of exchange, and therefore is objectionable in principle only. The same remarks are applicable to the tax on commissions received by agents or partners of foreign factors, &c.

I cannot with satisfaction to myself close this communication with out making a few remarks on the capitation or poll-tax.

If this species of tax be a mark of degradation, it should not be im. posed on any white man; on the contrary, if it be a badge of lib. erty" with all the rights, privileges and immunities pertaining to a citizen of a Republic, then free men of color, who are but partially enfranchised, should not be permitted to pay it. These people, for reasons of State policy, are like women, properly precluded from any participation in the affairs of government, and therefore should like women be divested of the "badge ;" but, inasmuch as they enjoy the protection of government in their persons, and their property, it is right that they should contribute towards the support of government in proportion to the amount of property they may possess. They are required to pay a poll tax six times as large as that levied on white men. This is inconsistent with the hypothesis alluded to above, and which is supported by the authority of that eminent writer from whose great work I have quoted several wise maxims.

But if we reject this hypothesis, and adopt the one which is now

generally recognised-that taxation is a burthen-then we are met by the principle asserted by our revolutionary statesmen, that “representation and taxation should go together;" so that the comparative ly high poll-tax on free men of color is irreconcilable with any just principle; and, let me add, it is inconsistent with the dignity of a sovereign American State. The force and truth of these remarks will be the more striking and obvious in view of the fact, that whilst free colored men who pay a poll tax of $3 30 are excluded, (and with propriety and sound policy) from any agency in State affairs, hundreds of white men, who may aspire to the highest honors and emo!uments of the Commonwealth, year after year refuse to pay for such privilege the ordinary market value of a bushel of potatoes!

On the subjects touched in this communication my sentiments are expressed frankly; to what regard they are entitled from the Execu tive and the General Assembly it is for them to determine.

JOHN BEARD, Comptroller. &c.

Comparative View of Warrants issued in Three Successive Years.