The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-10-05
VOICE FROM
The GRAVE
Leon Albeit Exhibits John
W. Griggs as the
Enemy of the
Taxpayers
HIS PART IN THE FIGHT OF 1904
He Emaseulated the Railroad
Tax Law and Robbed the
People to Benefit the
Corporations.
GREAT CONTEST OF THE FUTURE
Equal Taxation Not Dead Issue
"A Speech at Oakland Rink
in 1889, Which Exactly
Fits the Present
Campaign.
GREAT CONTEST OF THE FUTURE


On Monday, evening, October 8, 1882
there was a tremendous Democratic
mass meeting at Oakland Rink. The
principal speaker wos Leon Abbott, who
was then making his canvass for election
for his second termn as Governor. He
devoted a great part of his speech to
the taxation question. In the course OF
it. he paid his respects to John w.
Griggs.
The speech fits the present campaign
as if it had been made only yesterday.
"The News"1 reproduces it in full, as
most remarkable contribution to cor
rect understanding of the prevailing is
sues After few Introductory words
I'm this campaign I appeal to the
people of this State who are interested
in the great questions that now agltate
the people-uuestions which are beyond
any party limitation, questions which al
feet any individual, no matter to what
party he belongs. 1 stand as a represen-
tative of equal taxation and I shall bat
tie for it for the benefit not only OF
Democracy, but for all the people OF this
State Now, impress the first question
that of equal taxation-which affects
every interest-not alone the man VINO
pays the tax directly, but every man
that must have a home for his family.
Upon this question, which appeals to
to every citizen of the State with
wife and family and a home. the Re-
publicans have taken two positions. Iney
take the position first, that the laws OF
this State as they stood before 1854, gave
to the treasury sufficient money for the
paupers of the State, and at the same
time declare that the revenue of the
State should be derived from the taxa
tion of railroads and other corporations.
Prior to 1884, so far as legislation was
concerned, q great majority of our legis-
latures-all, with but one or two excep-
tions-had been committed under the
laws to so district the State as not to
permit the Democratic majority to speak
in its Legislature. They had ample OPP
por.tunfty to bring this question up,
they had power to pass the required leg
islation for, under the constitution of
this State, no matter what the Govern
or may think, if the Legislature chooses
to pass law, all he can do is to i'm
pose the moral effect of a veto. But
If the Legislature desires to oppose the
veto by the same vote by which the
bill originally passed they can override
the veto of the Governor. So that if
the Republican party prior to 1884 had
desired to have equal taxation, if they
had desired to approach it in any way,
SO far as the property of corporations
was concerned. they had the power to
do it in repeated Republican Legisla-
lures.
"But Republican Legislatures came
and Republican Legislatures went, and
not a single Republican presented the
measure or attempted to form one on
this subject. But in 1881, threef years be-
fore this law of 1881 was brought to the
attention of the Legislature, l offered.
as a member of the Constitutional Con-
vention. an amendment to the constitu-
tion of this State that a corporate prop
erty should be taxed the same as the
property Of individuals This L did when
I was private citizen, acting under
executive appointment. And when, in
1883, the people of this State elected me
Governor, on taking my Office in 1884,
/ presented in my inaugural this ques-
ton to the Legislature and demanded
that they pass law on the subject.
81 waited for some member of the Leg
islature to draft a law. The House was
Democratic, the Senate Republican. No
law was formed, no law was introduced,
and I personally drafted law and sent
it to the Legislature by member from
Passaic. 1t was presented and passed by
the Democratic House of Assembly, and
that law said in effect that all property
of corporations should pay the same tax
as property of individuals That was the
position of matters before the Legisla-
ture and when that bill went to the
Republican Legislature, what do you
think they did? This same Senate, which
the Republican press of the State now
claims was the father of this law, and
gave to the State its benefit what did
they do? Did they pass this law for
equal taxation? 10, they did not. They
passed substitute for it. in which they
limited the operation Of that law so that
it should not be law for equal taxa
lion. They did not dare refuse to act
upNp this question l declared then that
should go upon every platform in every
city and hamlet in this State and de-
mounce the man-be he Republican or
to the people, and l said to these men
that they .wsllld have to meet this issue
at every election until a law was passed,
and they didn't dare refuse to act.
'But when they began action, their
purpose was not to give law for equal
daxatiohs but to make discrimination
in favor of the corporate property And
how did they do? They put provision
in that law by which the property of
these corporations. should be taxed for
State purposes, only one-half of one per
cent. and that for municipal purnSses
Yea, more than that-they said that for
municipal purposes the tax would ex-
empt the roadbeds of the railroads and
the waterways Of canals, and the depots
and all personal property of these cor
porations from taxation. Now, that bill