STATE OF NEW YORK, County of Jefferson, City of Watertown, ss: I, M. E. Carnes, city clerk of the city of Watertown, N. Y., and clerk of the city council thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by said city council on February 13, 1951. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said city of Watertown, N. Y., this 15th day of February 1951. [SEAL] Mr. PAUL V. BETTERS, M. E. CARNES, CITY OF PLAINFIELD, N. J., February 20, 1951. Executive Director, United States Conference of Mayors, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. BETTERS: I submit herewith certified copy of resolution adopted by the common council of the city of Plainfield at its meeting held Monday, February 19, 1951, expressing opposition to any attempt to remove municipal bonds from their present exempt status from Federal taxation and to defeat any legislation which would have for its end the imposition of a Federal tax upon State or municipal bond issues. Very truly yours, FRED TOEGEL, City Clerk. Whereas in the past years continuous attempts to impose Federal tax on State and municipal bonds have been resisted as unconstitutional and unsound in principle; and Whereas efforts are again being made and legislation has been proposed that future issues of State and municipal bonds be made subject to Federal income taxation; and Whereas the imposition of a Federal tax on municipal bonds will increase the interest rate which municipalities would have to pay on future borrowing and this added burden will fall upon the local property taxpayers: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the governing body of the city of Plainfield does hereby express its strong disapproval of any federal attempt to impose a Federal tax upon future state or municipal bond issues: Be it further Resolved, That the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives be and they are hereby urged to resist any attempt to remove municipal bonds from their present exempt status from Federal taxation and to defeat any legislation which would have for its end the imposition of a Federal tax upon State or municipal bond issues: Be it further Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the New Jersey member and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, to the Senators from New Jersey, and to the Congressman from the Sixth Congressional District. Adopted by the common council February 19, 1951. Approved by the mayor February 20, 1951. Attest: This will certify that the foregoing is a true copy. [SEAL] CARLYLE W. CRANE. FRED TOEGEL, City Clerk. FRED TOEGEL, City Clerk. CITY OF ENID, OKLA., February 12, 1951. Congressman ROBERT L. DOUGHTON, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DOUGHTON: It has come to the attention of the city administration of Enid, Okla., that the President has suggested that future issues of State and municipal bonds be subject to Federal income taxation. This city as well as most other cities in Oklahoma now have a difficult time financing the needs of the local community; thus if our securities were taxed it would further seriously decrease our ability to finance local government. Therefore, in behalf of the city of Enid I wish to respectfully request that the House Ways and Means Committee reject any proposal to remove the present and constitutional tax exemption provision of municipal bonds. If the House Ways and Means Committee plans to give any serious consideration to this unconstitutional proposal the city of Enid will appreciate the opportunity to present additional testimony. Your favorable attention and action on our request will be much appreciated. Sincerely yours, HERBERT BARNETT, Mayor. CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa RESOLUTION NO. C-1771 Whereas it has come to the attention of the City Council of the City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, that the Congress of the United States is considering a proposal that future issues of State and municipal bonds be subjected to Federal income taxation, and Whereas it is the opinion of this council and its legal advisers that the Constitution of the United States does not permit or extend to Federal authority the power to tax State and municipal bonds, and Whereas under the laws of this State the revenues of this municipality are fixed and not subject to extension or expansion by municipal governments to meet increasing costs of materials and services, and Whereas it is obvious that if the Federal Government were empowered to tax State and municipal bonds, the inevitable result would be an immediate increase in interest rates which are payable solely from the revenues raised by means of taxes within the various municipalities, and Whereas it is the considered opinion of this council that if the Federal Government were to impose Federal taxation upon this means of financing municipal improvements, this proposed taxation would result in a burden upon municipalities which would in part or wholly destroy the financial structure of the various municipalities, and would so confuse and impede the long range finance planning of the various cities as to work a hardship and burden upon the financial capacities of such cities: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the City Council of the city of Cedar Rapids, That it does hereby express in the strongest manner possible its unalterable opposition to the proposal now before the Congress of the United States, which said proposal would authorize the taxation of State and municipal bonds: Be it further Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Honorable Robert L. ¦ Doughton, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C., the Honorable Thomas E. Martin, member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C., the Honorable Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Washington, D. C., and the Honorable Guy M. Gillette, Washington, D. C., with the urgent request that they do all in their power to defeat the proposed legislation hereinabove described and take such steps as may be possible to prevent this or any similar type of legislation ever being approved by the Congress of the United States. Passed this 12th day of February 1951. CLARENCE L. SEDIVE, Mayor. Councilman Burgus moved the adoption of the resolution; seconded by Councilman Prochaska. Adopted, yeas, Mayor Sedive, Councilmen Burgus, Jones, Prochaska, and Williams. CITY OF WYANDOTTE, MICH., February 14, 1951. RESOLUTION BY COUNCILMAN CLIFFORD T. BURKE Resolved by the City Council of the city of Wyandotte, That whereas it has been called to the attention of this council by the United States conference of mayors that once again Federal taxation of municipal bonds is under consideration by the House Ways and Means Committee; and Whereas this council is unalterably opposed to the taxation of municipal bonds as an undue taxation upon the citizens of our community: Now, therefore The city clerk be and he hereby is directed to send a copy of this resolution to all members of the House Ways and Means Committee and also to our Representative in Congress, the Honorable John Lesinski, and Senators Vandenberg and Ferguson. I move the adoption of the foregoing resolution. Supported by Councilman Brohl. CLIFFORD T. BURKE, Councilman. Yeas: Councilmen Brohl, Burke, Groat, Haynes, Kelly, McEachran. Nays: None. CITY OF RALEIGH, N. C. RESOLUTION NO. 427 Whereas the City Council of the City of Raleigh, N. C., has learned that the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, in his appearance before the House Ways and Means Committee, proposed that a Federal tax be placed on future issues of State and local bonds; and Whereas it is believed that the Federal Government does not have the right to impose a tax upon municipal bonds as it is the essence of sovereignty that a government be able to control its own financing and not be subject to interference by some other government in performing that particular function; and Whereas since the end result of such a proposal, if approved, would mean an added financial burden to the citizens of the city of Raleigh and would be injurious to the growth and development of the city of Raleigh; and Whereas it is felt that the interests of the citizens of the city of Raleigh can best be served by the city council opposing the proposal of the Secretary of the Treasury and thereby keep the future cost of bond issues at the lowest possible figure which will enable the citizens of the city of Raleigh to provide, through less costly bond issues, more and improved public facilities: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the City Council of the City of Raleigh: SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Raleigh does hereby express to members of the House Ways and Means Committee and to congressional representatives from North Carolina that it opposes any action of Congress to cause any taxation to be imposed upon future issues of municipal bonds; and does hereby urge the representatives of the State of North Carolina to offer objection to the proposal of the Secretary of the Treasury for reasons hereinbefore stated. SEC. 2. That the city clerk and treasurer be and hereby is directed immediately to transmit to members of the House Ways and Means Committee and to congressional representatives of the State of North Carolina a copy of this resolution. Adopted February 20, 1951. CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE, N. Y. RESOLUTION NO. 58 Resolution expressing the opposition of the city of New Rochelle to the proposal of the Secretary of the Treasury that income from municipal bonds be subjected to Federal income taxes Whereas the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States has proposed to the Ways and Means Committee of the Congress of the United States that income from State and municipal securities be subjected to Federal taxation and the Secretary of the Treasury has conceded that said proposition, if enacted by Congress, will increase to some degree the cost of future local borrowing: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the council of the city of New Rochelle hereby expresses its opposition to the proposition as made by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States to the Ways and Means Committee of the Congress of the United States that the income from State and municipal securities be subjected to Federal taxation on the ground that such legislation, if enacted, will effect the salability of said bonds and in addition thereto will increase the tax burden of all municipalities, and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the United States Senators and the Congressmen of this congressional district in the Congress of the United States, and be it further Resolved, That this resolution shall take effect immediately. Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL, Hon. Roy O. WOODRUFF, CITY OF MUSKEGON, MICH., February 19, 1951. House Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. The City Commission of the City of Muskegon at last regular meeting went on record as opposed to the Federal taxation of municipal bonds. Muskegon Commission has consistently taken this position and is unalterably opposed to any action that might tend to remove the present constitutional exemption of municipal bonds. Besides putting indirect additional taxation on local taxpayers, any action of this kind might be the opening wedge to tax other sources of municipal income and eventually tax the municipalities out of existence or make them subservient to and dependent upon the Federal Government for their long-term financing. On behalf of city commission and citizens of Muskegon I trust you will do all in your power to kill off immediately any attempts to tax municipal bonds. E. J. QUICK, Mayor, City of Muskegon, Mich. CITY OF BAY CITY, MICH., February 15, 1951. Hon. Roy O. WOODRUFF, DEAR CONGRESSMAN WOODRUFF: Our attention is directed that Secretary of the Treasury Snyder has again suggested in his appearance before the Ways and Means Committee the taxation of State and municipal bonds. Most municipal officials are vigorously opposed to this proposal as the adoption of same would (1) increase one large municipal cost by about 50 percent, (2) it¦ would increase additional taxes should Federal taxes be imposed on certain items that are presently taxed by the individual States, (3) this proposal could well open the way for Federal taxation of all municipal operated enterprises, (4) many vital municipal projects now financed by self-supporting revenue bonds would be impossible if the bond interest cost were increased. This present proposal is like that of former attempts, all decisively defeated. Likewise in all the long history of the Supreme Court not a single case can be cited which supports the view that the Federal Government has the right to tax State and municipal bonds. The imposition of the Federal tax on municipal bonds would result in an immediate increase on future borrowings and the burden would not fall upon the so-called wealthy bondholder but upon cities or States. We trust you will concur in our thoughts and register your opposition in this important matter. With kind personal regards and good wishes for yourself, we are Hon. NOBLE J. GREGORY, CITY OF BAY CITY, CITY OF LEXINGTON, KY., February 20, 1951. House Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I would appreciate anything you may be able to do in defeating the proposed Federal taxation on municipal bonds. At the present time we have an annexation suit under way in the city of Lexington, and if successful in this suit we will be required to obtain substantial amounts of money through a municipal bond issue. A Federal tax on these bonds would work a great hardship on us and place an undue financial burden on the local property owners. With kindest personal regards and best wishes, I remain, Very truly yours, TOM G. MOONEY, Mayor. : 斷 CITY OF LA CROSSE, WIS., February 13, 1951. Representative JOHN W. BYRNES, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In regard to Federal taxation of municipal securities. This action would mean that municipal governments would be required to pay increased interest rates on bond issues. The effect of the proposal would be to further increase the heavy burden resting upon general property taxpayers. They must eventually pay the increased interest expense. As you know municipalities have only property tax that they can assess, and certainly we would have many problems, and I do not feel that any additional cost should be saddled on municipalities at this time. Sincerely, H. J. AHRENS, Mayor. CITY OF WATERLOO, IOWA., February 9, 1951. Our city is very much concerned about the possible removal of the exemption of municipal bonds from Federal taxation. We are strongly opposed to the removal of this exemption. The Federal taxation of municipal bonds would only place an additional burden upon the cities which are having a very difficult time as it is in finding the means of financing needed improvements. In our city, we have already considered the putting off of certain long-overdue improvements which were scheduled for 1952. We feel the taxpayers in this city must be given some relief to compensate for the Federal taxes which seem to be increasing by leaps and bounds. This will pose a serious problem for our city and many cities throughout the country, as essential services must be maintained, and the rapid growth of cities such as our own calls for a greater expansion of these services. Most of our cities are operating under stringent and restrictive State codes which make our task difficult enough as it is and a further obstacle in the form of the imposition of Federal taxes on our municipal bonds could have severe consequences for us. It is also our contention that the only manner in which municipal bonds could legally be subjected to Federal taxation is through a constitutional amendment. Mayor LAWRENCE A. TOUchae. CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEX., February 8, 1951. Representative R. L. DOUGHTON, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. DOUGHTON: I hate to write one of those "I view with grave concern" letters, but I am concerned, concerned as hell. Once again and again the President in his tax message suggested the removal of constitutional exemptions of municipal bonds. In his appearance before the House Ways and Means Committee, Secretary Snyder said: "The exemption of State and municipal securities from Federal taxation is a long-standing barrier to the achievement of equity in the distribution of the individual income tax burden." Such a statement is as full of holes as a piece of Swiss cheese. It is so obvious that the burden of Federal tax would not fall upon the so-called wealthy bondholder, but would be a direct penalty upon the borrowing city or State government. A quick check indicates that if the Federal tax were to be applied to our municipal bonds, there would be an immediate increase in our interest rates of at least 1 percent. It is hard enough now to keep up with the barest essentials of sanitation and health requirements and any further increase in debt service cost would make the continuation of such improvements impossible. Evidently they are going on the theory that if you come back to the well often enough, you will finally get a bucket of water. It is inconceivable to me that, having rejected this unsound proposal so many times in the past, that our Congress would now act differently from what it had done heretofore. If the House Ways and Means Committee should contemplate giving serious consideration |