1864. 



THE ILLINOIS FARMER. 



37 



If the above law was occasionally put 

 in force it would be of immense benefit 

 to the fruit growing public. 



We trust our readers will keep watch 

 of this class of men hereafter, and save 

 not only their money, but much bitter, 

 disappointment. 



To send men into the Winnebago 

 Bwamps to cut white willow and to buy 

 bogus cuttings of the honest Dutch 

 farmers of Pennsylvania has had its 

 day. Had it not been for the drouth 

 that swept away the evidences of the 

 swindle, some responsible parties would 

 have had a rather unpleasant time, 

 even now the thing is not quite closed 

 up, further growth is needed to show 

 the cheat. Sorgho has had a ten years' 

 struggle with patent pans, rollers and 

 seed men, then why not other valua- 

 ble products have their day of trial. 



Income Tax. 



The Assessors of the State of lili- 

 nois, in convention last May, adopted 

 the following example as a guide. 



INCOME OF A. B. (FARMER.) 



Do not value increase of stock 4 years old and over. 

 Am't of farm produce of 1862, sold previous 



to Jan. 1,1863 $2*78 00 



2,000 bushels of corn unsold, sold prvioua 



to Jan. 1, 1863, at 18 cts 360 00 



240 bu. wheat, sold previous to Jan. 1, 1863 



at 60 cts 144 qo 



135 bushels potatoes sold previous to Jan. 



1,1863, at 40 cts 54 oo 



200 bushels oats, sold previous to Jan. 1, 



1 863, at 15 cts 50 00 



40 tous of hay, at $4 per ton 160 00 



All other orchard aad farm produce 60 00 



14 calves of the spring of 1862, worth Dec, 



31, 1862 70 00 



Increase in value on 16 yearlings over the 



cost of feed consumed 32 00 



Increase in value of 20 two-year olds, over 



cost of feed 40 00 



Increase of all other cattle over cost of feed 26 00 

 4 colts of the spring of 1862, worth Dec. 31, 



^ 1862 100 00 



Increase in value on 8 yearling colts, over 



cost of feed 30 00 



Increase in value of 4 two-year old eolts, 



over cost of feed 32 00 



Increase in value on other horses and mules 26 00 



50 pigs of the spring of- 1862, worth Dec. 



31, 1862 15 00 



Increase in value on other hogs over coit of 



feed 60 00 



Amount made in buying and selling stock 



in the year 1862 125 00 



Amount received for personal services or 



salaries, in the year 1862. 42 00 



Amount received for rents and interest. . . 182 00 

 Income from other sources than the above 63 00 

 Lambs as the increase of sheep at $1 pr hd. 

 Number of pounds of wool sold 



Total income from all sources $2,008 00 



DEDUCTIONS. 



Take no account of hay and grain consumed 



on the farm. 



Am't exempt by law $600 00 



Am't paid for taxes for the yr 1862 12Y 50 

 Am't pd. for labor on the farm do 285 00 

 Value of board of hired laborers . . 143 00 



Amount paid for rent 116 00 



Amount paid for insurance 31 00 



Amount necessary repairs to farm 



and buildings 28 00 



Interest or encumbrances on estate 



on which the person resides. ... 46 00 



$1,366 00 



Total deductions ,$1,376 00 



Am't liable to an income tax of 3 per ct. . $ 632 00 



There are scarcely two Assessors who 

 adhere to the same rales, except in re- 

 gard to the most prominent features of 

 the law ; for the reason that they don't 

 understand the law themselves, when 

 some new matter comes up, not partic- 

 ularly provided for in the enactment. 



By the above list farmers will see 

 what they have to account for, as an 

 income tax, and should keep an account 

 accordingly. 



We have 9, large number of very 

 stupid assessors, besides many who do 

 not understand the law, in fact, no two 

 men agree on all points, and it is to be 

 hoped that it will assume a more defi- 

 nite shape. That the law is wrong in 

 itself there can be no doubt in our mind. 

 We do not hesitate to say that we are 

 opposed to it in toto. We are not op- 

 posed to taxation, but on the other hand 

 think it highly necessary, but in this 

 income tax the wrong parties must pay. 

 It is an unequal tax, and it is for this 

 that we object to it. If the farmer is 



