Nathan Dane Project: Transcription

Beverly June 22, 1813

Dear Sir

I yesterday you letter of the 16th enclosing the report of the Committee of and the bills for imposing a requesting my opinion, , as the subject is extensive and complicated, and I have heard no observations upon it, my opinion cannot be of much value on examining this report and bills, two things appear to one to drink, a few other matters of minor importance I wish to notice-

By the report I observe the Committee respond to apportion the $ 316,270, the states part of their tax, on the in it, called , according to the last state tax, or in other words, according to the state evaluation- In the state of the tea ports and of the landed in the state, it is this sum ought to be apportioned on the parts of the state- whether by their rule, the state valuation , or by the federal valuation of 1790 as now proposed to be applied to New Hampshire, or by the valuation now proposed to be made.

I am satisfied the rules adopted by the Committee will be found to be more than at first , appears; and not a little absurd; it apportions this states quota on the in it, on , very different from more on which individuals are to be on the income tax. By the proposed bills individuals (where there are no ) can be only for their hours and land- and individuals are to be taxed for nothing, but these two objects and according to their intents in these alone is the tax to be apportioned among them, it seems to follow, , that it ought to be apportioned among the by the ; that is according to their houses and land our state tax is apportioned on counter on the same is on individuals, that is they are according to their in houses & land and ; and, no are the according to their intents, in these four objects of taxation.

The evident efforts of the Committee planers to lay much too large a portion of their states quota on the houses and land on those counties which had a large proportion of personal estate when the land state valuation was made. The county of Suffolk for instance on account of its personal estates, more than compared to inland counties, than hours and land alone, would place it in the state valuation of 1792. The county of Hampshire 7 1/3 percent for and 92 2/3 percent for in fact for houses and land; and in the same valuation the counties of Suffolk and Norfolk paid 29 2/3 percent for personal and 70 1/3 for real estate and Suffolk alone. I thought it must have been charged above 10 percent for personal estate in that valuation; there is still a greater proportion for it in the last state valuation. Therefore Suffolk by the plan proposed will be charged from 50 percent for personal estate in addition to the value of its houses and land; and the county of Hampshire only about 7 percent and the will take place in a greater or less degree in all the counties. If the county of Suffolk for instance take the large addition , on account of its large personal estate it is clear on that the individual who hold it, ought to be taxed, individually for it, but that is not the communities plan, nor can it be so, while the tax is a tax only on houses and land, or it is proposed it shall be; and the burden must be laid on them only, the efforts must be a house worth $ 1000 in Suffolk must pay a third more than a house worth $1000 in Hampshire as explained below.
I believe the Federal rule of 1799 applied as is now proposed in regard to New Hampshire, and , will be found to be much more equal as to Massachusetts than the one the Committee proposed. In that case it will be found that the federal tax of 2 million we use in Massachusetts on land $ 2, 82.6 1/6 on $ 1000 and what higher on houses; but not so much higher as to make a difference be consisting largely of houses and consisting mostly of land.

Further it is to be observed that the bill proposed provides for making a new valuation of houses, land, and according to their value in money on a day to be named throughout the present United States, to precede the of the tax upon individuals, as the valuation itself must furnish in the true rule of apportioning a state quota of the tax among the counter on it, where be the objection making and to empowering the of the by the tax , to apportion a state quota among it counter or by the new valuation as soon as it shall be completed, as this must necessarily the amount proportioned of the articles of taxation in each on the a to know why the Committee of mayors have taken as the rule of apportionment, utter a state tax on valuation or the federal tax of 1799 as one of the of evaluation. not a state tax grounded on a state valuation, because that at least as in Massachusetts, includes polls and property, one there or two for the personal estates, both of which are wholly to be excluded in applying this tax upon individuals, not the federal tax of '99 grounded on the federal valuation, relating to Oct. because since that time there has been a very in value of houses and land in the as compared with the inland ones; at least in the southern states, and for obvious reasons, for the former living orders when by the means of living there are no , are now nearly at a , by an almost total loss of the efforts have been, as you will know, that in many of our the land, the buildings now will be but for little more than the land alone, would have for them. It is not so in the inland , men there have not materially reflected on their , nor farmers in the of their procedure, no doubt it will be the counter or will have the advantage of this in value of houses and in the proposed valuation admits they will be valued low; but if they must be charged their greater quotas according to the valuation of '98, that is according to the high of houses and land, in them, the effect will be they will pay a higher percentage on the proposed valuation for example houses and land in this county at the then high price in the parts were valued at $ 10, 059,265.55, and in Hampshire bounty at $ 10, 186, 086. 60. About equal, and if the federal values of '98 now will be adopted, as proposed, in some states the two counties will be now, so far as houses of appointment and to the Committee propose to consider them and to their amount in a as population it from 1800 to 1890 compared with that of the whole state; suppose the population was to remain the same relatively, and the houses and land in now worth only $ 6,000,000 and those in Hampshire $ 9,000,000 yet by the Committee rule will be charged as high a quota as Hampshire of about $ 60,000 each, the consequences are plain; a house in worth and value $1000 must pay a tax just as high in Hampshire worth and valued at $1500 other places.
I fear as minute as I have been on this point I shall not be very well understood, and because (among other reasons to my mind the Committee of do not see the operation of their rules of appointments among the in a state, at least in this part of the country, I will say but little more on other points- for after all I believe the gentlemen will be please and tax the tea ports as they and not the worst of its for in addition to heavy burdens they have on their hands, of legal I need not describe- and convert into that industry and efforts that would make them

As to the bill you enclosed to me, in its principals is more simple, and therefore, so far better than the valuation out of 1798, and where it is worded from that it is will be enough, but in some other parts it is most obscure, and much of this obscurity arise from the abundance in the bill of the word and a person and indifferent there is one point in the bill I think the 16th Section allows an appeal from the persons to the principals of an (as in the act of July 9, 1798) and he will have power to realize the valuations in the same it -but I see no provision in the bill to equalize the in the same bounty their power properly be enforced from the lines in this 14th section to be in the principal of the . It appears to me that a power must be given to . Suppose each town in Suffolk, made a may value houses and land in one at this worth the money, according to the -in another 20 or 30 or 50 percent below- a thing very likely to take place that often and notoriously take place in making the federal valuation of -Further when the shall their valuation there will be an additional temptation to depart from the true rule by the 2nd section of the bill of each solution is to be appointed: and by the 3rd he is to into within each of which he shall appoint one respectable preholder to be assistant and I find no the bill any other but this one in each sections two or more .

	7557 Beverly June 22, 1813 Dear Sir I yesterday you letter of the 16th enclosing the report of the Committee of and the bills for imposing a requesting my opinion, , as the subject is extensive and complicated, and I have heard no observations upon it, my opinion cannot be of much value on examining this report and bills, two things appear to one to drink, a few other matters of minor importance I wish to notice- By the report I observe the Committee respond to apportion the $ 316,270, the states part of their tax, on the in it, called , according to the last state tax, or in other words, according to the state evaluation- In the state of the tea ports and of the landed in the state, it is this sum ought to be apportioned on the parts of the state- whether by their rule, the state valuation , or by the federal valuation of 1790 as now proposed to be applied to New Hampshire, or by the valuation now proposed to be made. I am satisfied the rules adopted by the Committee will be found to be more than at first , appears; and not a little absurd; it apportions this states quota on the in it, on , very different from more on which individuals are to be on the income tax. By the proposed bills individuals (where there are no ) can be only for their hours and land- and individuals are to be taxed for nothing, but these two objects and according to their intents in these alone is the tax to be apportioned among them, it seems to follow, , that it ought to be apportioned among the by the ; that is according to their houses and land our state tax is apportioned on counter on the same is on individuals, that is they are according to their in houses & land and ; and, no are the according to their intents, in these four objects of taxation. The evident efforts of the Committee planers to lay much too large a portion of their states quota on the houses and land on those counties which had a large proportion of personal estate when the land state valuation was made. The county of Suffolk for instance on account of its personal estates, more than compared to inland counties, than hours and land alone, would place it in the state valuation of 1792. The county of Hampshire 7 1/3 percent for and 92 2/3 percent for in fact for houses and land; and in the same valuation the counties of Suffolk and Norfolk paid 29 2/3 percent for personal and 70 1/3 for real estate and Suffolk alone. I thought it must have been charged above 10 percent for personal estate in that valuation; there is still a greater proportion for it in the last state valuation. Therefore Suffolk by the plan proposed will be charged from 50 percent for personal estate in addition to the value of its houses and land; and the county of Hampshire only about 7 percent and the will take place in a greater or less degree in all the counties. If the county of Suffolk for instance take the large addition , on account of its large personal estate it is clear on that the individual who hold it, ought to be taxed, individually for it, but that is not the communities plan, nor can it be so, while the tax is a tax only on houses and land, or it is proposed it shall be; and the burden must be laid on them only, the efforts must be a house worth $ 1000 in Suffolk must pay a third more than a house worth $1000 in Hampshire as explained below. I believe the Federal rule of 1799 applied as is now proposed in regard to New Hampshire, and , will be found to be much more equal as to Massachusetts than the one the Committee proposed. In that case it will be found that the federal tax of 2 million we use in Massachusetts on land $ 2, 82.6 1/6 on $ 1000 and what higher on houses; but not so much higher as to make a difference be consisting largely of houses and consisting mostly of land. Further it is to be observed that the bill proposed provides for making a new valuation of houses, land, and according to their value in money on a day to be named throughout the present United States, to precede the of the tax upon individuals, as the valuation itself must furnish in the true rule of apportioning a state quota of the tax among the counter on it, where be the objection making and to empowering the of the by the tax , to apportion a state quota among it counter or by the new valuation as soon as it shall be completed, as this must necessarily the amount proportioned of the articles of taxation in each on the a to know why the Committee of mayors have taken as the rule of apportionment, utter a state tax on valuation or the federal tax of 1799 as one of the of evaluation. not a state tax grounded on a state valuation, because that at least as in Massachusetts, includes polls and property, one there or two for the personal estates, both of which are wholly to be excluded in applying this tax upon individuals, not the federal tax of '99 grounded on the federal valuation, relating to Oct. because since that time there has been a very in value of houses and land in the as compared with the inland ones; at least in the southern states, and for obvious reasons, for the former living orders when by the means of living there are no , are now nearly at a , by an almost total loss of the efforts have been, as you will know, that in many of our the land, the buildings now will be but for little more than the land alone, would have for them. It is not so in the inland , men there have not materially reflected on their , nor farmers in the of their procedure, no doubt it will be the counter or will have the advantage of this in value of houses and in the proposed valuation admits they will be valued low; but if they must be charged their greater quotas according to the valuation of '98, that is according to the high of houses and land, in them, the effect will be they will pay a higher percentage on the proposed valuation for example houses and land in this county at the then high price in the parts were valued at $ 10, 059,265.55, and in Hampshire bounty at $ 10, 186, 086. 60. About equal, and if the federal values of '98 now will be adopted, as proposed, in some states the two counties will be now, so far as houses of appointment and to the Committee propose to consider them and to their amount in a as population it from 1800 to 1890 compared with that of the whole state; suppose the population was to remain the same relatively, and the houses and land in now worth only $ 6,000,000 and those in Hampshire $ 9,000,000 yet by the Committee rule will be charged as high a quota as Hampshire of about $ 60,000 each, the consequences are plain; a house in worth and value $1000 must pay a tax just as high in Hampshire worth and valued at $1500 other places. I fear as minute as I have been on this point I shall not be very well understood, and because (among other reasons to my mind the Committee of do not see the operation of their rules of appointments among the in a state, at least in this part of the country, I will say but little more on other points- for after all I believe the gentlemen will be please and tax the tea ports as they and not the worst of its for in addition to heavy burdens they have on their hands, of legal I need not describe- and convert into that industry and efforts that would make them As to the bill you enclosed to me, in its principals is more simple, and therefore, so far better than the valuation out of 1798, and where it is worded from that it is will be enough, but in some other parts it is most obscure, and much of this obscurity arise from the abundance in the bill of the word and a person and indifferent there is one point in the bill I think the 16th Section allows an appeal from the persons to the principals of an (as in the act of July 9, 1798) and he will have power to realize the valuations in the same it -but I see no provision in the bill to equalize the in the same bounty their power properly be enforced from the lines in this 14th section to be in the principal of the . It appears to me that a power must be given to . Suppose each town in Suffolk, made a may value houses and land in one at this worth the money, according to the -in another 20 or 30 or 50 percent below- a thing very likely to take place that often and notoriously take place in making the federal valuation of -Further when the shall their valuation there will be an additional temptation to depart from the true rule by the 2nd section of the bill of each solution is to be appointed: and by the 3rd he is to into within each of which he shall appoint one respectable preholder to be assistant and I find no the bill any other but this one in each sections two or more .

7557