Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-01-26
BOARD TO- APPRAISE.
ONE TO TAX TELEPHONE, TELE-
GRAPH, AND EXPRESS COMPANIES.
TO REPORT The BILL rAYORADLY.
This Decision Reached by the House
Finance Committee After an In
teresting Discussion--Efccts Of Al
cohoIfc Drinks to lie Taught.


companies, and defining what constitutes
such corporations, will be reported to the
House favorably.
This decision was reached by the FL
nance Committee last night. after an IN
tcresting three-hours' session, during
which Mr.. Alfred +. Thorn, OF Norfoik'
and Major Robert Stiles. Of this CITY,
were heard in opposition to the bill, ana
Mr.. Saunders in favor of it. Messrs. John
B. Moon and w. A. Glasgow. Jr., were
present. but did not speak.
The committee was called to order AT
9 o'clock, the body having awaited the
arrival of Mr.. Saunders. The latter, III
opening the argument, simply said that
he had endeavored to confine his bill TO
the Ohio statute. the consttutionality OF
which had been tested.
OPPOSED BY MR.. THOM.
AR A. L. Thom, of Norfolk. represent
ing the Long-Distance Telephone Com
pany, said that that corporation was per-
fectly willing to contribute to the reve-
nues of the State her proportion OF same.
His company had only just located In
the State, and therefore II had not es-
caped any Just taxation, as 1t had no
past history. The theory OF the proposed
bill was a novel one Not only was all
the property located In the State TO be
taxed but also that which was not with
In the Commonwealth. Any attempt to
do this on the part of Virginia must work
out an unjust result. Because Ohio had
adopted such a law was no argument
why Virginia should act likewise. There
were forty-three States that had not
adopted such a policy. The Supreme
Court had decided the constitutionality
OF the Ohio statute by vote of 10 =.
He thought that the pending bill was con-
trary to the Constitution OF the State or
Virginia. however. 1t was not the pur-
pose of the bill to give a uniform system
Of taxation TO all properties similarly sit
uated. but three classes were singled out
telephone. telegraph, and express compa-
| nies. Railroad companies and others sim
ilarly situated were not burdened with
| this additional taxation. The principle or
| the bill could not be justified when 1t did
| not apply alike to all such corporations
A VICIOUS PRINCIPLE.
| The speaker contended. however that
| no matter TO what companies 1t applied
| the principle was inherently vicious. He
| charged that the bill was inquistorial in
| its character. and radical in its departure
| from the heretofore accepted methods or
1
\ that: II was oppressive. he declared.
| They protested against being required to
\ bring all of their books. records. etc,
| from other States and have them exam
| ined in Virginia in order that the au-
| thorities of the latter might ascertain the
| business done In other Commonwealths
| by these companies. He held that no just
| man in Virginia wanted to tax property
4 that was not located within the Common
wealth, but which was in some other
| State. The earning capacity of a line in
! New York was worth fifty times that OF
| one in this State He did not believe that
| any man would justify the taxation by
| the mileage system. If taxed according TO
the business done in the State, then VIZ
ginia would lose by the operation OF this
system. He did not think that II would
tend TO the welfare Of the State for Nir-
| ginia to put herself in the attitude OF an
tagonizing the investment Of capital
| within her borders.
FOR THE WESTERN UNION.
Major Robert Stiles. representing tn
Western Union Telegraph Company, spok
next. He said as far as the constitu
tionality of the law was concerned III
Supreme Court of the United States wa
handicapped when it came to conside
the statute for It had already been passe
upon by the Supreme Court of Ohio
Major Stiles said as far as his compan
was concerned they actually lost NOR
than $1,000 the past year on their busi
| ness in Virginia. He knew that IN
Western Union could hardly conduct IL
business without coming through tn
State. but that il received no profit fror
the latter, but was rather burdened tina
otherwise. What justice was there 4
discriminating against certain corpora
tions? Why not apply the same syster
| of taxation 10 the American Tobacc
| Company? he asked. His company wa
willing to pay its fair proportion or IN
revenues If they were compelled TO b
taxed according TO this mileage systeI
the company would be forced to give u
certain offices, from which they derive
/ no revenue, but actually lost in man
tanning them They were now kept u
for the accommodation of the public, an
the Western Union shared the expense
these offices with the railroads. Ther
were only thirty-six separate and distin'
offices in the state. he said.
At the conclusion of Major Stiles's n
marks Mr.. Glasgow said that he hin
self represented the Southern Expires
COMPANY. but was not then prepared
discuss the bill SO far as 1t affected thu
corporation.
u SPEAKS FOR HIS BILL.
Mr. Saunders, the patron or the me;
sure. then closed the argument He sal
that the decision OF the supreme cour
of three States, backed by the sustainir
= opinion Of the Supreme Court OF II
United States, was sufficient TO settle a
questions as to the constitutionality
such a law. Other corporations might
> brought within the scope of such Ia
r as suggested, and he hoped some oth
gentleman would take up this matte
At present he had his own hands III
In renlv TO a question, the speaker sa
. that there was a bill in another comml
tee which had such an object In vie'
3 AR Saunders was asked who was the p
tron of II. and replied that he was. Tn
:, aamission. in the face OF his precediI
statement. caused considerable laughter
Tha contention of these companies WI
, that the state should not go beyond
limits in taxing property. MT. Sauhde
ia ,hot the Supreme Court had tax
~, this same contention, but did not su
tain 1t. 49,, =,
svstem of the bill was applied IL cou
he shown that the property In the sta
= nronosed to be taxed had no value AT a
as would seem TO be the case iroin :
= 0ures given by Major stiies. Corpoi
tiors should not be treated as private
d,v,duais. dDiI and the courts had recogniz
n this fact. The public had a right ev @
n 80 t''' limit the profits Of corporatior
.Sounh ~ the latter resented as ''inquisit
$ riar, rn an effort to arrive at what the
profits were 80
I pThe speaker said that under prese
( onditions he could not see that the your
n,an of the State had any bright prospec
n ~" thonn He thought they shou