by Governors, Premiers, and Presidents of Universities and Colleges. 2. Standing Committees shall be appointed as follows: (a) A committee of five on credentials, named by the Chair. (b) A committee of five on rules and program, named by the Chair. (c) A committee on resolutions, to be composed of one member from each State and Province represented, to be selected by the delegates present from each State and Province. 3. Addresses shall be limited to twenty minutes. 4. Discussion shall follow each paper, where the subject is different from the following one, and shall follow a group of papers when the subject is similar. 5. Each speaker in discussion shall be limited to five minutes, and the general discussion shall not exceed thirty minutes unless otherwise voted. The privilege of the floor shall be extended to members of the International Tax Association and public officials. 6. The order of discussion shall be: (a) Invited speakers. (b) Those who give notice of their desire to discuss a particular paper. (c) General discussion by delegates. 7. The ordinary rules of Parliamentary procedure shall govern otherwise. [At the third session a further rule was adopted: "Resolutions shall be referred to the Resolutions Committee without debate."] Mr. Frank P. Crandon (Illinois) moved the adoption of the rules. Motion carried. GOVERNOR DAVIDSON: Delegates from each State represented will please hold a caucus and select one of their number as a member to represent their State or Province on the Resolution Committee, and give the name to the secretary as soon as possible. (The Resolutions Committee membership, as finally completed, is printed on page 24, ante.) The meeting then adjourned. E [At the evening session, Governor Davidson announced the Committees on Credentials, and Rules and Program, as follows:] COMMITTEE ON CREDENTIALS SAMUEL T. Howe of Kansas. O. M. HALL of Minnesota. W. M. P. BOWEN of Rhode Island. J. W. HARRIS of Manitoba. COMMITTEE ON RULES AND PROGRAM A. C. PLEYDELL of New Jersey. J. J. THOMAS of Utah. FRANK B. SCHUTZ of Wisconsin. SECOND SESSION TUESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 30, 1910 CHAIRMAN HON. E. F. NOEL, MISSISSIPPI PROGRAM 1. THE GENERAL PROPERTY TAX IN SWITZERLAND. Charles J. Bullock, Professor of Economics, Harvard 2. DISCUSSION. 3. THE INCOME TAX AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX IN WISCONSIN. Professor T. S. Adams, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 4. COMPARATIVE RESULTS OF INCOME TAXATION IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES. K. K. Kennan, Attorney, Milwaukee, Wis. 5. DISCUSSION ON INCOME TAX. THE GENERAL PROPERTY TAX IN SWITZER LAND BY CHARLES J. BULLOCK Professor of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. SUMMARY I. History of Swiss property taxes.- Federal and cantonal taxation. - Income from property and industries. - Cantonal and local taxation is diversified the various taxes employed. II. Constitutional status of the property taxes. The property taxable. - Deduction of debts. - Methods of assessment. - Penalties. Tax rates. Taxation of corporations.- Communal taxation. III. The workings of the property taxes: (a) real estate; (b) mortgages; (c) forests; (d) personal property; (e) the prevailing rates of taxation. The taxation of incomes. State supervision of local assessments. - Popular lawmaking. Conclusion. FOR an American the property taxes of the Swiss cantons have peculiar interest. Switzerland is the only country of Europe in which direct taxes upon property hold such a position in the fiscal system as they occupy in the United States. It has a federal form of government; and therefore, like the United States, must adjust federal finances to state and local, while readjusting the latter to the conditions created by the formation of a federal union. In political institutions, also, fundamental similarity exists, since both countries are democratic. Evidently, then, the property taxes of the Swiss cantons operate under conditions closely resembling those with which the American student is familiar; they are in most, though not all, cases the mainstay of the state and local finances; they have been adjusted more or less perfectly to the relations that exist under a federal system of government; and they have been shaped in accordance with the popular will of some of the most democratic communities in the world. |