In presenting a statement of the number of packages of all kinds received, we beg to add that properly prepared books were placed in the hands of the agents on which to record the amounts distributed of these, as well as of all other supplies, against the name of each family receiving aid. Donations of merchandise received by the Detroit Relief Committee and the Fire Relief Commission, part being sold and credited in cash donations, the remainder distributed to the sufferers or now in store: Clothing, bedding, and mixed merchandise, packages.. Hardware, tin-ware, crockery, packages.. Grain, flour, potatoes, and seeds, bags. Total number of packages and pieces..... 4,480 161 3,423 221 678 428 164 190 10 9,755 Upon the basis of the relief which has been already afforded by the different committees, it is believed that the funds now on hand will be sufficient to subsist the sufferers until April first. It would have been very gratifying to have been able to state that the sufferers would from that date be able to support themselves, or that the funds so generously donated would prove sufficient to accomplish that end. The fact remains, however, that much yet is required to be done for our unfortunate fellow citizens, and the Commission deems it its duty to submit for consideration without any specific recommendation as to the amount which may be required, a few of the principal wants of the people for which aid is yet necessary, and for which no means are yet provided to supply. It will be seen that only such needs are referred to as have already either formed a part of the work of relief or have become connected therewith, as in the case of taxes, for the payment of which money donated for the subsistence of the sufferers has been in many cases used. The following comprise the principal heads under which aid will be required after April first, to supply part of which it is essential that operations should be commenced as early as practicable. First,-Provisions for subsisting teams during seeding time. Third,-Money to pay taxes. Fourth,-Subsistence for the people until they can realize from their lands and labors. Other losses occurred to a very considerable amount in school-houses, fences, bridges, culverts, and public edifices. For these the Commission did not feel warranted in making appropriation from the funds at its disposal. It will be obvious from the character of the work itself, and the possibility of contingencies arising in the future which may to some extent increase or diminish the necessity for aid to the sufferers, that the Commission cannot assume the responsibility of naming a specific sum for that purpose, but instead thereof respectfully submits some statistics in connection therewith, which it trusts may be of service in determining the amount yet necessary, and which will be found attached to this report. In accepting the trust placed in our hands we have so endeavored to dis charge the duties incumbent upon us in furnishing aid to our suffering fellow citizens as to enable them to build up their homes again, and to become selfsupporting. In closing this report we may be permitted to say that we, as a people, are under the deepest obligations to our fellow citizens of other States for so generous a response to the appeal for aid to our suffering people, and that we have endeavored to administer their bounty for the best interests of those for whose benefit it has been so freely bestowed. All of which is respectfully submitted. H. P. BALDWIN, Chairman. A. H. DEY, D. C. WHITWOOD, F. W. SWIFT, C. T. GORHAM. DETROIT, February 22, 1882. STATISTICS OF LOSSES. The following statistics of the losses by the fires are prépared from reports made to the Fire Relief Commission: Number of townships more or less burned over....... Number of houses destroyed 70 1,521 1,480 3,231 14,438 ..$2,346,943 00 726 40 162 55 The estimate made above of property destroyed does not include that of individuals not requiring and who did not apply for aid. STATISTICS AND ESTIMATES IN RELATION TO FURTHER AID FOR THE SUFFERING. FEED FOR STOCK. Total number of cattle at the maximum allowed of one team and one cow to each family, that are receiving one and a half tons of hay each, in round numbers, about 5,000. Proportion of teams in the above requiring additional feed during seeding time.... SEED. Total amount asked for per returns collected as follows: 1,700 The above report from individual requests, includes returns and estimates from all the sufferers of every class. Deducting from this quantity the proportion of those whose losses were slight and who should be able to supply themselves (about one-fourth) and also the quantity believed, on a comparison of the statistical returns of losses with the amount asked for, to be in excess of the ability to use for seeding purposes, will show that about sixty per cent of the quantity asked for will be sufficient to supply all that can be properly used by those entitled to seed. TAXES. The taxes reported by the township treasurers as assessed to the sufferers amount to $26,276.00. The above amount includes the assessment against every sufferer of all classes, one-fourth of whom at least should be able to pay without aid. SUBSISTENCE FOR THE PEOPLE. The number of families reported who will probably require aid for subsistence after April 1st, 2,000. Number of persons included in these families who will probably require more or less subsistence from April first until harvest, say about five months, 9,000. STATEMENT FROM PORT HURON. PORT HURON, MICH., February 10, 1882. His Excellency, DAVID H. JEROME, Governor, Saginaw City, Mich. DEAR SIR:-In reply to your telegram of yesterday we would respectfully report that that the total amount of money received by our committee up to date is $192,831.44, of which amount $175,008.62 has been expended and appropriated, leaving an available balance of $17,822.82 in our hands. We have received and distributed donated goods valued at $255,960.26. Respectfully submitted. Yours very respectfully, M. H. ALLARDT, Secretary. The following is the report of the Tax Commission, made a part of the message of the Governor: Hon. David H. Jerome, Governor of the State of Michigan, DEAR SIR: In accordance with the provisions of act 153, of the session laws of 1881, we, the undersigned, tax commissioners, hereby transmit to you the bill prepared by us for submission to the Legislature. It has seemed proper that we should accompany this bill with some discussion of the questions involved, and a statement of the principles by which we have been guided. The great mass of taxes in this State is received from assessments on property. The act from which our authority is derived, confines our attention to this class. The constitution of Michigan, Article 14, section 11, provides, that "taxes shall be levied upon such property as shall be prescribed by law." I. The first question then is: ON WHAT PROPERTY SHALL TAXES BE LEVIED? The natural reply would be, on all property, unless some extraordinary reason to the contrary can be shown. It has been of late years much contended by some political enconomists, that indebtedness ought not to be taxed. The chief arguments which sustain this view are as follows: 1. Indebtedness is not property. The wealth of any State is not increased or diminished because some of its citizens owe others. If a debtor has property with which to pay his debts, his creditor equitably owns a portion of such property, but the amount is not increased thereby. If a debtor has no property, the claim of the creditor represents at the most an equitable lien on the debtor's future acquisitions, which are not existing property. Debt and credit affect then the equitable ownership of the property of the State, but they do not affect the amount. A tax on indebtedness is then double taxation. It is based on property which is taxed at its full value in the hands of the debtor. 2. There is nothing which the tax assessor finds so difficult to ascertain as the credits of the tax payer. The thing is one which most men desire to conceal. The debtor will not confess what he owes, because it may affect his credit. The creditor is unwilling to do anything to increase his taxes. There can be no public record of indebtedness. Such record is to be found only in the minds of the debtor and creditor. There is no sure way of reaching it. The consequence is, that under the strictest systems of taxation in this country, the largest proportion of debts are not reached. The taxation of those that are reached makes an inequality which may be most unjust. 3. To the argument that if creditors were not taxed, many of the wealthiest men might enjoy all the advantages of government and pay nothing therefor, it is replied, that if the rule of taxing only property were once established, all men would speedily adjust themselves to it, so that no injustice would result. The debtor, if he found the weight of taxation too heavy, would sell his property and relieve himself. No man would continue to hold property equitably belonging to another and pay taxes thereon, unless he thought it for his interest so to do. The owner of real estate whose taxes were increased would be able to increase the price of his products, or the amount of his rent, so as to receive full compensation therefor. The creditor who escaped direct taxation would have to reduce the rate of interest until his return on his investment would be no greater than the net amount received by those owning property and paying taxes thereon. Whatever may be the force of these arguments, we are of opinion that a law imposing no tax on credits would not be approved by the people of this State. Our bill, therefore, does not seek to change the existing law on this subject. The difficulty of collecting a tax on creditors and the injustice of compelling a debtor to pay the full tax on the property owned by him, have led some to propose as a remedy that a debtor, whose property is mortgaged, shall be allowed to deduct from the interest due on the mortgage such a proportion of the tax paid as the mortgage bears to the value of the property. At first sight no proposition seems more plainly just, but after the fullest consideration we are compelled to believe that it is impracticable, and for these reasons: 1. There is no good reason why such a deduction should be confined to mortgages. Every creditor has an equitable lien on the property of his debtor. The debtor really owns only what is left after the payment of his debts, and in strict justice he should be taxed only on this surplus. The giving of a mortgage does not affect this amount. It is the debt and not the mortgage which diminishes his ability to pay taxes. The rule then should be the same whether a mortgage has been given or not. But to provide that a debtor might deduct from the claim of a creditor such a proportion of the taxes paid, as the debt bears to the assessed value of his property, would lead to many frauds. The assessed value of a debtor's property might often be less than the aggregate of his debts, and he might derive an advantage from his taxes. 2. Such a law could not be of general application. It could not apply to creditors residing in another State, or nation, as has been settled by the Supreme Court of the United States.-15 Wallace, 300. Nor could it apply to existing indebtedness. If it did it would impair the contract, in violation of the constitution of the United States. If such a law were made as to future contracts, the result would be either that contracts would be made inconsistent with the law, or that loans could be made almost entirely by non-residents, who could not be made subject to the law. 3. Such a law would be most unjust to savings banks and insurance companies organized under the laws of Michigan and loaning money in this State. They would be compelled to pay taxes on the whole amount due them, without being able to deduct the sum of their obligations. The result would be a discrimination against companies organized in this State, which would probably lead to their destruction. II. EXEMPTIONS. The second subject for discussion is that of exemptions. We provide but for slight changes here. Instead of certain exemptions of specific property in the existing law, we have substituted a general exemption of $200 of any kind of property in order that every class may have the benefit of a provision now confined mainly to one class. Some may think that with the greatly increased wealth of the State and the diminishing purchasing power of money, the exemptions in favor of the poor ought to be greatly increased. A counter-balancing consideration which makes such increase impolitic is the danger of multiplying that growing class of voters, who, with no taxes to pay, determine in part the amount of public burdens. There has been of late considerable discussion of the propriety of the common exemption of church property. The argument against it is that some who do not believe in religion are by such exemption indirectly forced to contribute to its support. The argument assumes that if churches were not exempt there would be more taxable property, and hence the burden on each would be less. This is not certain. If taxing churches diminished their number, as is possible, the result might be that the aggregate taxable property of the State would be diminished. The money now spent in churches might then be consumed in expenditures which would not increase the wealth of the community, and there is a widespread opinion, very powerful if only a prejudice, that the existence of numerous and prosperous churches make a place more desirable as a residence. |