The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-06-07
is THE LAW A FOOLISH FREAK
Meeting to Consider the Measure Tax
ing Negotiable Paper IA Canital

MeehnB TO consider the Measure Tax
Ing Negotiable Paper as Capital.
There assembled in the county court.
room yesterday aftern BON, substantial rep.
resentatives of the business community To
consider measures of relief from an op.
pressive privilege tax law passed by the
last Legislature.
Acknowledgement George B. Peters was
was also brought in to enlighten the gen.
tlemen from legal standpoint.
Among the many laws passed by the
last Legislature, was one providing that
merchants and other business men, in
reporting to the tax assessor th r capital,
should include stocks, bonds, bills receiv-
able, and other negotiable paper upon
all OF which n tax was to be levied. Just
what was uppermost in the minds OF the
legislators when this bill was enacted
into a law would be difficult
to define, but those within the
scope Of its effect are ready to insist that
the idea was an egregious blunder OF judg-
ment 1t was new departure TO rake in
revenue, and extremely cruel in its opera
tons, 80 far rs can be seen at the present
time.
County Court Clerk Quigley received
many complaints from merchants when
the law was first put into practice and
privilege taxes were taken out under it,
Being new deal and a radical one, Mr..
Quigley applied TO the State comptroller
for instructions as TO whether il should be
literally interpreted. The application fell
int the hands OF Mr.. Allen, an authoritative
attache OF the office, who replied that in
his opinion II should be so construed, but
added that IL was a hardship and would
probably be repealed by the next Legisla-
ture. Proceeding on this line, the county
court clerk imposed observance Of the OBJ
noxious section, admitting, however, that
those within the range OF liability were
deserving Of sympathy.
The effect Of this law can be aptly illus
trated in brief example: A merchant has
$4,000 invested in his business. On this
basis, and good credit, he may do bust
ness OF 100000. He holds a number of
notes and other negotiable paper. In re-
porting his capital, he must 90 beyond
the actual amount invested-$40, 000-and
include all this paper, no matter IL Il reach
the amount OF $50, 000or more. But there
is another illustration, which particularly
affects the county court clerk and other OF.
iicials who hold funds in trust. When the
assessor, in the legitimate discharge Of his
duties, reaches acertain estate, he applies
TO every quarter where property or funds
belonging 10 said estate is held. On the
day on which application is made to the
official, he may hold $4,000 and must so
report. The very next day the
Judge in authority may order
half or the entire amount paid
over TO the proper parties. Aiterward,
when the tax falls due, the clerk is called
upon for his proportion on the estate held
by him when the assessment was levied
What is he going TO do about it? With
the present lights upon the subject, the
law is both ridiculous and imperative, be-
cause impracticable.
Attorney-Gencral Peters took the case
under adyisemcnt, and will report to the
gentlemen at another meeting announced
for this morning.