because it would, in all likelihood, result in a substantial increase in the cost of its future financial program and might well affect the marketability of its securities. Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of Lowell hereby resolves to protest the passage of any such legislation by the Congress of the United States now or in the future; and it is hereby Ordered, That the city clerk spread this resolution upon the records of the city council and send copies thereof to the Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States from this district, and to the House Ways and Means Committee now in session at Washington, D. C., and any other committee or committees of Congress which shall consider such proposed legislation; and it is further Ordered, That the city manager of the city of Lowell take all necessary steps to make the position of the city known to the proper authorities and to protect its interests in any manner he may deem fitting and proper. In city council, February 20, 1951. Read twice and voted, seven members voting yea, two members absent. Recommended by: Approved as to form: WILLIAM H. SULLIVAN, Clerk. JOHN J. FLANNERY, City Manager. P. HAROLD READY, City Solicitor. Approved by John J. Flannery, city manager, February 21, 1951. A true copy. Attest: [SEAL] WILLIAM H. SULLIVAN, City Clerk. CITY OF ALTOONA, PA., February 23, 1951. PAUL V. BETTERS, Executive Director, United States Conference of Mayors, 730 Jackson Place, Washington, D. C. DEAR Mr. BETTERS: Altoona City Council has asked me to inform you that we want to go on record with the Conference of Mayors as opposing the proposed tax on State and local securities. Yours very respectfully, J. LESTER LAUGHLIN, Mayor. CITY OF DANVILLE, ILL. RESOLUTION Be it resolved by the City Council, of the City of Danville, Ill., That they communicate to the members of the House Ways and Means Committee and to each Member of the United States Congress from the State of Illinois, their opposition to any Federal legislation to remove or impair the tax-exemption feature of municipal bonds and securities; and that a copy of this resolution be sent to all the above-mentioned Members and committee of the Congress. Adopted by unanimous vote, by the city council, this 20th day of February A. D. 1951. GREEN BAY, Wis., February 20, 1951. By the Mayor and Council of the City of Green Bay, Resolved: The Ways and Means Committee of Congress having before it a proposal of the Secretary of the Treasury that income from municipal bonds be subjected to Federal income taxes, and It being apparent that the difficulties in obtaining tax funds for city treasuries would be increased twofold or more if such proposal went into effect by virtue of the fact that interest rates would be increased to the extent of the tax levied; and It being further apparent that such taxation would merely mean a passing on of an additional tax to the city dweller; now therefore It is urged that the Ways and Means Committee, after giving full consideration to the additional financial burden that would be placed on municipalities by the proposal of the Secretary of the Treasury, return an unfavorable report on the proposal. 79120-51-pt. 2- -28 T. SHEPECK. I, Clifford A. Centen, the duly elected, qualified, and acting City Clerk of the City of Green Bay, Wis., do hereby certify that the above resolution is a true, correct, and compared copy of a resolution adopted by the mayor and council of the City of Green Bay, Brown County, Wis., at a regular meeting held February 20, 1951. [SEAL] CLIFFORD A. CENTEN, City Clerk. Dated at Green Bay, Wis., February 23, 1951. CITY OF MERIDIAN, MISS., February 22, 1951. The Honorable WILLIAM COLMER, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN: As spokesman for the city government of Meridian, I wish to convey to you, as well as to all the members of the House Ways and Means Committee, our strong protest against the proposed taxation of State and municipal bonds. The principal source of income for cities is the ad valorem tax and a large proportion of that tax goes for the servicing and retirement of municipal bonds. It is common knowledge that cities everywhere must struggle to keep this tax from becoming confiscatory. Making the proceeds of such bonds subject to Federal tax, would immediately increase the interest cost and partially destroy the market for such securities. We think this tax would be a direct invasion of the constitutional rights of States and cities and we seriously solicit your strong opposition to the measure. Very truly yours, L. B. PAINE, Mayor. CITY OF LINCOLN PARK, MICH. Resolved, That the mayor and council of the City of Lincoln Park, Mich., hereby record their protest against any legislation to tax municipal bonds, since such action would wrench the whole Constitution from its harmonious proportions, and would destroy the object and purpose for which the whole instrument was framed; and further Resolved, That certified copies of this resolution be forwarded forthwith to the Honorables John A. Dingell and Roy O. Woodruff of the United States House of Representatives. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of a resolution adopted by the mayor and Common Council of the City of Lincoln Park, at their regular meeting held under date of February 13, 1951. JOHN M. O'CONNOR, City Clerk. MOUNT AIRY, N. C. RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED TAX ON MUNICIPAL BONDS BY THE TOWN OF MOUNT AIRY, N. C. Whereas an effort is being made at this time to pass legislation to tax the income from the sale of State, county, and municipal bonds: Whereas, the municipalities are at this time pressed to meet their obligations, due to the limited field that is left to them to derive tax income: Whereas the taxing of said income from the sale of said securities would work a great hardship on the said municipalities, and it would make it impossible for them to carry on in the same efficient manner that is required: Whereas it has been estimated that the levying of such a tax would result in an increase in the rate of interest that would have to be paid by said municipalities of about $2 for every $1 that the Federal Government would gain thereby, now therefore be it Resolved by the town board of Mount Airy, N. C., That our Senators and Congressmen be requested to oppose such legislation for the taxing of State and municipal bonds. Further, that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the two Senators and the Members of the House from North Carolina. I, J. C. Hill, clerk to the Board of Commissioners of the town of Mount Airy, N. C., do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of the resolution passed by the said town board on February 21, 1951. Witness my hand and corporate seal of the town of Mount Airy, N. C., this the 22d day of February, 1951. J. C. HILL, Town Clerk. [SEAL] TOWN OF ARLINGTON, MASS., February 23, 1951. Hon. ROBERT L. DOUGHTON, DEAR SIR: As chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, we write to advise you that the board of selectmen are unanimously opposed to the proposal currently before your committee to impose a Federal tax on municipal bonds. We have written the Senators and Congresswoman representing our community requesting them to support our position in this matter. It is our firm opinion that the repeal of the traditional exemption of State and municipal bonds and securities from Federal taxation would be a grave error in times when such municipalities are already overburdened with their individual tax problems. SIR: Borrowing is more difficult for the cities than the Federal Government, and the cities are attempting to pay off their indebtedness. The securities of the cities should remain tax-exempt. The taxation loophole that the Secretary of the Treasury mentions is not significant, but the additional cost to the cities which would result from issuing taxable securities is important. Please oppose any legislation to impair the finances of the cities. Mention to your friends on the Ways and Means Committee of your attitude and the convictions, I am sure of all the cities of Colorado, that this proposal should be defeated decisively. Yours most sincerely, JOHN OLIVER HALL, City Manager. P. S.: Taxation of municipal bonds will not help the cities to solve their own problems, and will not help them to resist Federal grants-in-aid CITY OF HARRISBURG, PA. RESOLUTION Whereas City Council of the city of Harrisburg, Pa., has been advised of the proposal of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States that income from municipal bonds be subjected to Federal income tax; and Whereas if such proposal is adopted by the Congress, all cities could undoubtedly expect a considerable increase in the interest rates which they would be required to pay on municipal bonds; and Whereas if such proposal is adopted by the Congress, the effect would be to pass an increased Federal income-tax burden to taxpayers of the city; and Whereas if such proposal is adopted by the Congress, one of the last traces of State sovereignty which is inherent in our Federal system would be wiped out: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That city council is opposed to the proposal of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States that income from municipal bonds be subjected to Federal income tax; and be it further Resolved, That the mayor be directed to communicate with the United States Senators from Pennsylvania and the Congressman from the Eighteenth Congressional District, indicating the position of city council in this matter and enclosing a copy of this resolution. I second the motion. JOSEPH A. VOGLER. OHIO CITIES The Association of Ohio Municipalities has always been vigorously opposed to removing exemption from Federal taxation of municipal bonds.-JOSEPH H. CROWLEY, Chief Counsel, Cleveland. Express forceful opposition to proposal to remove exemption of future issues municipal bonds. Mayor R. EDWARD TEPE, Norwood. As a member of the executive committee and vice president of the Ohio League of Municipalities, I am asking you to exert every effort to defeat Secretary of Treasury Snyder's administration tax bill relating to removing exemption from Federal taxation of future issues of municipal bonds. We are bitterly opposing this, as it would make a hardship on all municipalities in the future.—Mayor Joɛ C. HARTLINE, Marietta. Urge you to oppose Federal taxation of municipal bonds.-E. E. HAGERMAN, Director of Finance, Dayton. Oppose proposal to removing exemption from Federal taxation of future issues of municipal bonds.-Mayor STANLEY A. WELKER, Lima. Oppose in every way possible.-H. M. STANLEY, City Manager, Ironton. Am opposed to Federal taxation of future issues of municipal bonds.-Mayor LOUIS E. MANSFIELD, Ashland. I urge you to contact chairman of committee and register our opposition to proposal.-E. ALLEN MCKEEVER, Auditor, East Liverpool. Favor continued municipal bond exemption.-CHARLES A. CARRAN, City Manager, East Cleveland. Please oppose proposal, as it is detrimental to municipalities.—JOSEPH J. MITOCK, City Auditor, Lorain. KENTUCKY MUNICIPAL LEAGUE RESOLUTION Whereas the Secretary of the Treasury, in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee on February 5, 1951, suggested that the income from State and municipal securities be subjected to Federal taxation; and Whereas this proposal now confronting harassed States and municipalities is not new or novel with the Treasury Department, but for several years our hardpressed local governments have been periodically engaged in an attempt to forestall the ever-expanding scope of Federal taxation into this field; and Whereas the sixteenth amendment to the Constitution was ratified by the States with the understanding that income from State and municipal bonds was not thereby subject to Federal taxation, and to do so now would be a breach of faith and confidence; and Furthermore, if such bonds were removed from Federal taxation exemption, municipalities could anticipate that interest rates on such bonds would advance at least 1 percent, the cost of this exemption removal would ultimately and certainly be borne by the city taxpayer. The board of directors of the Kentucky Municipal League is of the opinion that the suggestion of the Secretary of the Treasury is violative of the Constitution of the United States, and that if enacted into law would destroy one of the most fundamental concepts of our governmental structure-the dual sovereign immunity of the Federal and State Governments: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, (1) That the board of directors of the Kentucky Municipal League by this resolution now announces it opposition to the suggestion of the Treasury, and likewise opposes the enactment of any legislation which will remove or tend to remove State and municipal securities from Federal tax exemption; and Resolved, (2) That a copy of this resolution be served upon the members of the House Ways and Means Committee and the United States Senators and Congressmen from Kentucky, and they are requested to oppose the measure aforesaid. Attest: THE KENTUCKY MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, CARL B. WACHS, Executive Secretary. ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, February 7, 1951. Congressman NOAH M. MASON, Washington, D. C. According to press reports, Secretary of the Treasury Snyder has suggested to House Ways and Means Committee consideration in administration tax bill be given to removing exemption from Federal taxation of future issues of municipal bonds. Although Congress has on two previous occasions within the past 10 years refused to impair the constitutional sovereignty of States and cities, once again the Treasury persists in presenting this recommendation. Federal taxation of municipal bonds simply means increase in interest rates up to as much as 1 percent. If future issues can be taxed, next step would be to tax outstanding issues. If this suggestion is given serious consideration by the committee, we hereby register opposition of municipalities in Illinois and request that an opportunity to testify be given a representative of Illinois municipalities. A. L. SARGENT, Executive Director, Illinois Municipal League, 537 South Fourth Street, Hon. ROBERT L. DOUGHTON, CITY OF DALLAS, TEX., February 7, 1951. Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DOUGHTON: In company with officials of other municipalities of the United States, we in Dallas are seriously concerned over the proposal made by the Secretary of the Treasury recently in his appearance before the House Ways and Means Committee that municipal securities be removed from their tax-exempt status. The application of a Federal tax to municipal bonds could only result in higher local taxation to residents of mnuicipalities or the curtailment of improvement programs essential to the health and development of our American cities. In Dallas, where our postwar growth, both in area and population, has already seriously strained our finances, curtailment of improvements would not only affect our general development but would interfere with the expansion of this city as a defense industrial center. We realize that members of the President's Cabinet, faced with the cost of an expanding Military Establishment, must seek every potentially productive source of revenue. In this particular case, however, we believe the Secretary of the Treasury fails to take into consideration the fact that the Federal Government cannot damage the growth and security of local governments within the Nation without damaging the national structure itself. The proposal to tax income from municipal securities is not a new one. Each time it has been suggested previously the Congress of the United States, with its closer liaison with local government and the better understanding by Congressmen of local governmental problems, has refused approval. We doubt that the pressure of international affairs will lead the Congress to abandon its previously wise decisions on this issue. If such a likelihood does appear, we respectfully request that representatives of the city of Dallas, along with representatives of other American cities, be allowed to present their information and opinions to the committee. Respectfully, Hon. J. M. COMBS, W. H. SAVAGE, Mayor. CITY OF DALLAS, TEX., February 7, 1951. House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN COMBS: I am enclosing a copy of a letter which I have written to the Honorable Robert L. Doughton, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, on the proposal by the Secretary of the Treasury that municipal bonds be removed from their tax-exempt status. The effect of adoption of this proposal would be particularly serious in Texas, where practically every city, large or small, is struggling to meet the requirements of a rapidly growing population. We realize that it is necessary for the Federal Government to provide fully for the needs of our Armed Forces, but we |