Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-02-28

value of the property of the corporation then dlVde
the balance by the number OF shares of the capiiai
stock and that should be the basis upon which the
| tax should be levied.
.Ir SATTERwHrrE said he believed the minority
bin to be right than the majority, bat he a
not agree with either in their present Shape He
explained the bill introduced by him, which the
committee had not adopted. 1t was bssed upon the
idea that the capital stock of all corporations III eA-
cess of that portion which Is invested IN tangiOe
property sitused in this state should be assessed 10
lhe corporation at its place Of business and that
certificates Of shares of corporations should be as
sessed to the individual shareholders at the place
of the residences. He recognized the distinction
between the capital stock and the shares of capital
stock. Ii it came to the point as 10 whether they
would tax the shares OF capital stock to the eoro
| ration to the dividual shareholders, he would
| p e;tr the latter. lie read from Burrows on Tax
alton page 10 and cited the cases rowing out Of
the taxation by States of the national bank stocks
| MIR. WENDELL again spoke in favor of the minority
bill. In answer 10 Mr. Sears he cited the case q
Farrngton VS.. tennessee, in the Ninety fifth United
| states Reports. He was glad to hear one Ot the
gentlemen who favored the majority bill sayirg ihat
| stocks should be taxed under the Constitution.
That had been the dividing line heretofore, He also
read from decisions IN the national bank cases, 10
show that the taxation of so ks upheld IN those
| cases.
Mr. BAKER spoke in favor of the majority bill.
He favored it most Tor the that IL Contained
"a plain, clear statement that there should
not be double taxation in this State. Those
| who had favored the new Constitution had
argued before tue people lnaL INC CONSTITUTION
not permit double taxation. IL It tIt not, and 1t
was not offended in this bill, it could do harm to
put that statement il the pill. he held that the
absence in the Constitution Of the language used in
| the old Constitution that taxation should be equal
and uniform, was very significant, and he wanted
this Act TO out with the declaration that there
should be no double taxation. What double taxa
tion IS could uot Ce determine by the Legislature.
That must be lett for the Courts to decide. In re-
gard the national bank he said that the re
son Tor that decision that the law providing for
the taxation oi the shGr OF stock in those banks
/ provided how they might be tax by the States
As an illustration Of the Of taxing stock by
the minority bill. he put this case: Suppose the
| gentleman from Solano possesses 100000 III gold
| coin and goes into the banking business. On the
first Monday in March he has the glitterlng twenty
dollar pieces oiled upon his counter ready for Gus
TONERS. The Assessor comes in and he is assessed
! upon the 100000 Now suppose that the Senator
from Sonona goes into the banking business, having
transformed himself by legal proceeding iuto cor
| poration and has SI00,000 He issues thousand
shares Of stock at slG0 share. de keeps 996 OF
| these shares and gives TO y. b. G ami d the other
four shares Now the Assessor comes in and assesses
him on the $1,000 in coin, and then assesses the
shares of stock in the hands of the holder. He de
sired To know ii that would rot be double raXation
| and requested the Senator from Solano, Mr. Wen
| dell, and the Senator from Sonoma, MI Moreiand,
! tc answer.
Mr.. WENDELL replied that the question under dis
eussion was not theory about double taxation. He
| would not be drawn into any outside discussion.
SSN"NSAA NAS
Mr.. MoRsLAyD replied that it was not double tax
alton to tax property twice II 1t was in different
| hands.
| Mr.. BAKER continued and argued-at length against
the minority bill and in favor OF square decara-
tion that there should be no double taxation.
Mr.. CHENEY held that shares Of capital stock were
! n rsonal p.opertv and must be assessed 20 the
owner He favored neither Of the reports IN their
| present shape and read ON amendment which he
would offer at the proper time.
The Senate took the usual recess
AFTERNOON SESSION
The Senate reassembled at 1:3O P. ~, President
| Mansfield in the chair.
| Roll called and a quorum present.
| Mr. WEST spoke in 'avor of the minority bill. He
held that thedeciaration in the od Constitution tnat
! taxation should be equal and Uniform, was an a6-
| surdity. No taxation system could ever be made
| exactly even and uniform. He attacked the bill of
| the majority on the ground that it contained the
provision that there shoId be no double taxation.
That clause would be construed SO rs to allow the
! wealth OF the State to escape taxation. No swo
4 LAWYERS woulj agree upon construction of 1t. He
| held that the new Constitution did not provide Tor
double taxation nor did the bill OF the minority.
! a message was received from the Assembly trans
tting part four Of the report of the State Engineer
Mr. C0NGFR gave his position on the bills Neither
OF them suited him in their nTesent shape. He
| would favor the amendment read BY MIR. Cheney
| when it was offered
| Mr. JOHNSON spoke for one hour and half, and
was listened to with profound attention. He went
! over tie whole ground and answered all he argu-
nents used by those who favored the minority btl.
He favored the majority bil mainly on the ground Of
its provision that there should De double taxation
! He did not believe IN taxing The capital stock OF
corporations, and the constitutional Constitution
! did not intend that it should be taxed. he read
from the journal of the Constitutional Convention
to show that the Convention voted down the propo
/ sition to tax the capital stock OF corporations
four different times. He held that while the de-
csions referred to the other side had been that
| there could be double taxation, thay did
not say there ought to be. The Legislature
had power to tax property two or three
! or four times but that did not make it right to do
it. He said that the Constitution did permit double
taxation, but it did not say there should be double
taxation, and those who held that the Constitution
did not permit double taxation should not be AFRAID
t. put clause in this Dill saying tnat tnere sIouu
| be no double taxation.
| Mr.. ENos closed the debate in favor of the minor
| ity bill. He did not favor double taxation and
| wanted some amendments made to the minority
bi but ne believed it nearest perfect and ought
| to be taken up and amended The Constitution qua
not inteno there should be double taxation. He
f.vored taxing the shares OF STOCK 10 the Individual
owners or holders.
The roll was called on the motion of Mr. MORE
LAND to substitute the minority bill for the majority
bill, and it prevailed by the 10 lowing vote;
Ayes-Anderson, Burt, Cariock, Chase, Conger,
Enos, Glascock, German, Harlan, Hil Kane, Kelly,
| Lampson, Langford Noreland, Nelson Rowei, sat
terwhite Wendell, West Zuck-2l.
Noes-Baker, Brown, Cheney, Davis, Dickerson,
George, Hlteli, Huuson, JOhhsou, louiseui, -NSu
mann, Nye, Pardee, Pool, Ryan, Sears, Iraylor,
At5p. N. the Senate took a recess till 7:3o.
EVENING SESSION.
The Senate assembled at 7:SO P. NJ, with quorum
OF Senators present.
Senate Bill No. = Mr.. Johnson's land monopoly
bill was taken zip and discussed until nearly eleven
O'Clock, when it was rejected. The discussion was
some what heated one and partook largely OF q po-
! it.csl character
Adjourned, to meet at 10 A. NJ. to-day.