Again the Illinois General Assembly has proved that, when money matters are concerned, the difference between country and city, farmer and urbanite, is more pronounced than the difference between political parties. About eight years ago, Illinois had a so-called Board of Equalization which was established for the sole purpose of plundering the larger cities, above all Chicago, for the benefit of our noble farmers. The Board has done its work with criminal impudence. It not only doubled the tax levied upon Chicago, after the taxes had been increased by twenty-four per cent, and then even by ninety-eight per cent, but, at the same time, it deducted more than a million acres from the taxable property of farmers, thus committing a twofold swindle. In this year's session of the Illinois General Assembly the first attack was made against this band of robbers (the Board), but without the desired result. As soon as the matter was introduced all party differences 2ceased; Republican, Democratic, and Independent farmers, or rather representatives from rural communities, cast aside all party differences and united to protect the "sacred rights" of the farmers to rob and pillage the "contemptible" cities. And so the proposal to abolish the Board of Equalization was rejected by a great majority, giving the "loyal," "honest," and "good" tiller of the soil, who so often is represented as a living proof that the American people are thoroughly moral, further opportunity to let evil urbanites pay their (the farmers') taxes.

However, at least one improvement has been made in tax legislation, or, more correctly stated, at least one absurdity that is beyond the human mind's powers of comprehension has been removed. In their greedy desire to place their burden of taxation upon the "infamous capitalists," the rural members of a former legislature had introduced a twofold tax levy upon corporations. First, the physical property of joint stock corporations, which was used to acquire their capital, was taxed, and then also the stock certificates as so much separate capital. For instance, twenty people furnish $500 [sic] 3each, or a total of $100,000, for the purpose of, say, establishing a lumber mill, or a furniture factory, or a newspaper. The $100,000 was used to purchase buildings, machines, raw materials, etc., and each of the twenty people, who contributed the necessary money, received evidence of part ownership in the enterprise, in the form of stock certificates. Let us assume that $85,000 was used to establish the business, and $15,000 to meet operating expenses, that is, to pay salaries, etc., until the first profits were realized; then $85,000 would remain in the form of physical property. Our rural tax "artists" figured thus: Here we have, first, $85,000 in tangible property, and there we have $100,000 in capital stock--we shall tax that also; so we have $185,000 of taxable property.

This system of taxation showed itself in all its glory when taxes were levied upon privately owned and corporate businesses of the same nature. In the one case only tangilbe property was taxed; in the other the tangible property and the capital stock, or stock certificates which were merely a receipt for money that was invested in the tangible property. In this way the Chicago Times and 4the Chicago Journal, which are owned each by one person, were taxed only for tangible property; but the Tribune, Interocean, Post, and the three German dailies, all of which are owned by corporations, had to pay the twofold tax.

It is needless to say that this differentiation was felt as a penalty by all of those who had pooled their resources to establish stock companies. The system operated exclusively to the advantage of large corporations and to the detriment of those who invested their earnings in the stock of small companies. It was "killing the goose that laid the golden egg".

One of the few creditable services rendered by the present legislature was the removal of this nonsensical system of taxation. Another was the abolishing of the different interest rates which creditors may charge for loans. To maintain these various rates would mean to drive all capital furnished by people living in other states, to other parts of the country. It is gratifying to know that our infuriated rural legislators did not permit their 5animosity towards "nefarious capital," to cause them to commit such a suicidal folly. However, our hopes of being blessed with a thorough improvement of our tax system through the application of common sense methods, must be deferred two years hence, when our vulturous Board of Equalization may also be abolished.