OCR Text |
Show -20- burden of national oversight would be excessive and ineffective. Here, again, there is need for regulation by the unified action of the affected region. Again we find resort to compact. Early in our history such action was re- sorted to for the building of a canal between Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, and incidentally affecting Pennsylvania. 80 A recent analogue of this method enabled New York and New Jersey to secure under- water communication through the Hudson Tunnels.81 Throughout the country local utilities cross State lines and raise irritating difficulties over regulation.82 State compact furnishes an effective answer. Kansas and Missouri have drawn on it to master such a situation.83 Here is a ready means for avoiding undue congestion at Washington and the ineffectiveness of individual State control. (8) The tax burden of this country is not comparable to the drain upon the national income of Great Britain, whose taxes absorb close to a fourth of its annual income, compared with about ten per cent in this country.^ But all political parties are agreed that our situation also calls for re- lief, however they"may differ in their views as to the proper distribution of the incidence of taxation. Our own problem is complicated by the over- lapping taxing powers of States and Nation as well as the opportunity for reciprocity and retaliation between States. Certainly as between the States there is much need for simplification, for avoidance of litigation, for equitable apportionment of common taxing resources, which, to some extent, may effect the total of taxation and the inconveniences incident to the ad- ministration of our tax laws.85 An intimation of a field hitherto unex- plored is furnished by the compact between Kansas and Missouri for the taxa- tion of interstate municipal activities.86 The taxing power is the most jealous power of government; it is also least amenable to the scientific process. Nevertheless, no one can scan the flood of cases dealing with "jurisdiction" to tax, rules for apportionment and the like, without realiz- ing that the opportunities for taxation open to the States against common resources might find a more e conomic and more effective solution through negotiation than through litigation. At all events, in view of the grow- ing burden upon time and feelings, as well as the cost in money due to the conflicts and confusion arising from the administration of independent 8oSee Appx. A, III, (3) infra. 8lSee Appx. A, III, (31) infra. 82s©e e. g. Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Kentucky (139U; 154 u. S. 20U, Ik Sup. Ct. 109^; Port Richmond & B.P. Ferry Co. v. freeholders of Hudson. County (19lU) '23U U.S. 317* 3k Sup. Ct. 221; of. New York Cent. R.R. Co. vm. Freeholders of Hudson County (1913) 227 U.S. 2l»8, 33 Sup. Ct. 269- • 83see Appx. A, III, (36) infra. 84Seligman, Comparative Tax Burdens in the Twentieth Century U92U; 39 Pol. Sci. Quart. 106, li+3- , N . Q5See e. g. Proceedings of National Tax Association (1922) passim. See e. g. Judson, Interstate Comity in Taxation (1907) Proc. Nat. Tax Ass'n.39; Reed, A Council of States, ibid. 20; Dix, State County and .Taxation (1911) Ibid. 1+5; Report of Commission on Uniform Insurance Tax (1910) ibid. 291* S6see Appx. A, III, (36) infra. |