Part 17

Footnote 75:

The exemption was granted in 1690. (R.I. Col. Recs. III, 274). It would seem to be uncertain how long it lasted as in 1707 (Ib. IV, 24) a law is passed exempting the "Governor x x x; his dwelling house" and its conveniences from taxation during his term of office. The other legislation during the period in regard to the payment of public officers was as follows. In 1698, the governor's salary was increased to £30 and, in 1701, to £40. In addition the assembly in many years voted him a gratuity, amounting sometimes to as much as his salary. In 1695 deputies were allowed, apparently out of the general treasury, 3s. a day, with a double fine for non-attendance. In 1698, the towns were ordered to pay the deputies, but in 1703 it was again ordered that they be paid out of the colony treasury. On account of the increasing revenue the treasurer's fees were reduced to one shilling in the pound in 1698, and to six pence in 1705. Before 1702, the agents were inhabitants of the colony, sent over to England by the assembly. In that year Penn, then in England, was intrusted with the interests of the colony. He employed for the purpose a solicitor, William Wharton, at £40 a year. In March, 1708-9, the assembly granted Wharton £30 a year additional for past services, to cover expenses, and appointed him agent for the future with £80 a year salary.

Footnote 76:

It seems to have been intended to send the money to aid other colonies. In July, 1695, the rate was to a great extent uncollected, however, and none of it seems to have been applied to the purpose intended. With the exception of the May and June sessions of 1691, and August, 1692, no records of the assembly are known to exist, for the period October, 1690, to July, 1695.

Footnote 77:

During this period however the colony seems to have run into debt, which was defrayed out of future taxes.

Footnote 78:

The loose way in which the treasury accounts were kept does not permit us to show exactly how much of the revenue went for each of these objects. It is possible to make an estimate of some value, however. After the governor's salary had been increased to £40, and including the special grants frequently made to him, the payments made to the legislative and executive officers amounted, probably, to about £150 a year. The payments made to agents for the period 1695-1710, were probably not far from £1,000. The whole cost of the civil government, including the support of the agent, seems on the average not to have exceeded £500 a year. It was probably under rather than over that amount. The remainder were military expenditures, the most important being on account of the expeditions of 1709 and 1710.

Footnote 79:

This census is included in a report, containing quite a full account of the condition of the colony, sent by Governor Cranston to the Board of Trade in reply to their inquiries (R.I. Col. Recs. IV, 56). It probably cannot be depended on for accuracy, and would seem to be rather an under estimate. Some years before the militia, which is here given at 1362, had been estimated at 2,000. This however was doubtless too high.

Footnote 80:

This law had principally to do with the administrative side of taxation. It was doubtless established by custom that all property was taxable. The tax law as it stands on the statute book today is hardly more than administrative; as in 1703, everything is supposed to be taxable, except what is specially exempted.

Footnote 81:

A committee was appointed to draw up a law for valuing lands and cattle, and if upon examination it was found that any town had been overrated a rebate was to be allowed to it out of the next tax. The committee reported the present law sufficient, and the only additional legislation at this time was a grant to the magistrates to "regulate anything appearing defective" in the law, and the provision that the treasurer of each town should be regarded as the deputy of the general treasurer.

Footnote 82:

R.I. Col. Recs. III, 300. The magistrates were ordered to call town meetings "with all expedition for choice of the "three men." It was further ordered "that there be a Commissioner chosen in each town, to meet with the men that shall be chosen in each town, to assess the said rate of two pence per pound, and to adjust the proportions, and sign with each Committee, and return the same to the General Treasurer." It will be remembered that there was a tax officer with a similar title at the time of the Andros government (note 71), His duties were different from those of the present commissioner. In fact it is difficult to see how the latter differed from the other three men referred to. The number of assessors does not seem to have been definite. In the case of the penny in the pound tax of 1695, the towns were to choose "two or three" men and the following year they were to choose as many as they should see fit. In the case of both taxes in 1695, tables were adopted stating the amount of tax to be collected on certain kinds of personal estate, not the valuation of the estate as in the table given on page 22. The following is the table adopted for the penny in the pound tax:

Oxen, four years old and upwards, at three pence per head 00 00 30

Steers, three years old, and all cows at two pence per head 00 00 20

All two year old, a penny per head 00 00 10

All three year old, at half penny per head 00 00 01

All sheep at one year's old and upward, at five pence per 00 00 50 score

All swine above a year old at a half penny per head 00 00 01

All horses and mares above three years old, at three pence 00 00 30 per head

All two years old horses and mares, at one penny per head 00 00 10

All year olds, at a half penny per head 00 00 01

All negro men servants, per head 00 01 80

Negro women servants, per head 00 00 100

It is evident that the property in the above table is taxed on its value and not on the yearly profit and, in want of further information, it would be unsafe to infer that the provision for taxing lands, houses, and trademen according to profit was intended to introduce anything in the nature of an income tax. What evidence we have tends to show that the tax was assessed not on profits, but on the value of the property, in determining which value the yearly profit was probably the most important consideration.