The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-01-26
REPORT IT FAVORABLY.
THE BILL CREATING n board or
ASSESSORS
For the Property of Express. Telephone
and Telegraph Companies-The Ar
guments For and Against.

a called meeting last evening In room
No. 1 on the upper floor OF the Capitol
Building. with Mr. Merritt T. Cooke, OF
Norfolk in the chair.
The object OF the meeting was TO con-
slider Mr.. Saunders bill TO establish
board OF assessors and appraisers with
a view OF assessing in systematic man
ner the value OF the tangible property OF
express. telegraph and telephone compa-
MES doing business in this state.
The attendance OF the committee was
large. and the following gentlemen were
present to look after the interests Of the
corporations affected by the provisions OF
the bill: Mr. A. y. Thorn. OF Norfolk, rep
resented the Long Distance Telephone
Company. while Mr.. Clarence Young was
there for similar reasons, while MAJOR
Robert Stiles looked after the interests OF
the Western Union Telegraph Company
and Mr.. w. A. Glasgow represented the
Southern Express Company
Ii was shortly before midnight when
the argument came to close and the
committee then went into executive ses-
sion, and after half an hours dehbera-
ton. decided to report Mr.. Saunders Dill
favorably.
The committee was to have met al
o'clock but there was considerable delay
on account Of the late arrival Of the
patron of the bill. Mr.. T.. w. saunders
OF Franklin.
Mr.. A. p. Thorn said the representatives
Of the various companies had been from
time TO time in conference with MT Sauh-
ders. and Major Stiles was now in po-
sition TO give him some Information ne
desired and il was therefore. decided 10
postpone the argument until the arrl'"l
of Mr. Saunders. It was O'Clock wheh
tho committee took up the consideration
OF the bill. .,.~..,
WILLING TO PAY THEIR QUOTA.
Mr.. Saunders thought he had nothing
more to add 10 his explanation OF the
measure at the previous meeting OF the
committee.
Mr.. A. b. Thorn. of Norfolk. said in his
rersonaI canacitv he was in sympathy
,yith every legitimate effort to increase
the revenues of the state In his repre-
sentative capacity he could say that the
company ne REPRESENTED was perfectly
willing to contribute its quota 10 the
revenues Of the State. He referred 10
the Long Distance Company. whose wee
president had authorized him TO say thar
the company was ready 10 pay all that
was right and just. and It was only OPP
posed 10 paying any unjust charges
The theory of the bill was a novel one.
The bill was based on the theory that
not only the property OF the company IN
virginia was taxable. but also certain
amount OF its intangible property. Not
only the property actually located IN
Virginia should be taxed but also certain
intangible property. which was claimed
to centre here. The only manner In
which a just result might be achieved
would be to have all the property Of tho
company located everywhere appOrtioned
in a lust manner between all the States
of the Union
The suggestion had been made 10 ape
portion the value by taking the mileage
I'm Virginia and compare IT with inc
! mileage outside OF Virginia. There was
! no Virginian living who wanted taxes on
ANYTHING that was not located i'm Vir-
ginia II the mileage in this state was
| to be taxed equally TO that N New YORK
| the presumption should be that the Dus-
/ mess i'm the two States was the same.
| while the earning capacity I'm New York
vas at least fifty times that m FlIglnHt.
| II the mileage principle was not adopted
! then the next basis would be th> Sus-
! gcsted basis Of the business ana an tnt
| advantages would then be in favor or the
| States with the big business and IT thar
! principle was adopted for this state II
| would go against IL. Virginia should not
adopt this system. because II was De
cidedy unjust and selfish con ., be,l
! ter system" he said I'VE Omer you all lne
property brought by as into Virginia
| verified by all the business that We 90
| The system is also impolitic. Tor an we
! have i'm Virginia are undevcloped re-
| sources and men and what Wa need IS
| the means 10 develop hsse resources ana
/ employ the men .......,,
MAJOR STILES ARGUMENT.
| MAJOR Robert stiles. or this cry .nSt
| addressed the committee on behalI or me
| Western Union Telegraph Company: ~
referred 10 the cOnstituuonallty OF the
| ohio law as decided by vote OF 70 ,
| bv the Supreme Court OF the uhileu
| States and which tribunal couid not uS-
| eide that IL was unconstitutional. thal IL
J contained double taxation, as long as IL
( had been declared constitutional Dy lhe
| Sunreme Court Of the State or ONO.
| Major stiles went partially over the
same ground as Mr. Thorn ana p9ln ll.,.,
| out that the real question involved was
| Justice and measurement. In speaking
| Of the Western Union Telegraph com
| pany i'm particular, he stated thal tuas
| company not only did not mike any
money in this State, but had denci. VI
| eli SG4G 81 annually. He spoke OF the I'M
| certainty of adopting a mileage or DUST
| ness system, and he went on 10 snow
| what the principle involved in the biz
| had done in other States. Ihe TAX I'M
! posed under such system In Arkansas
| xvas M the rate Of $3.50 a mile i'm ONO
| at the late of 500 mile, and IN Ken
| tuckv at the rate Of S16i mile. In TWO
| ar frree of these States this system mao
| since been abandoned. A settlement mao
been made i'm Arkansas. Kentucky ana
| Tennessee on a basis suggested by MS
| company $500, -, ,.o,,
Nh William A. Glasgow stated he rep
resented the Southern Express company
| but was not prepared 10 ARGUE '''o ~
| at this time in detail. .....,r.>-,,
CLOSING THE ARGUMENT
! Mr. Saunders then closed the discus
sion on the bill. He said he was satis.
fed to rest his case on the decision o.
the Supreme Court Of the United state
which had been the same IN the case
| Of inc Express Company in question
against the States OF Ohio. Indiana, an'
| Kentucky The Supreme Courts or three
| states had been fortified by the supreme
| Court of the United States. He admitted
| that there were other corporations ina
| might be brought under the provisions
| Of such law and he noped some olhe'
| member would take tnat matter up 10 eX
! tend the provisions OF the law 70 them
As to railroad companies he could only
! saw that a bill dealing with them was nov
| before the House Committee on Courts
of Justice. The three companies unde
discussion were selected because thel
were dealt with by the Ohio law. II IN
bill reached out to property beyond I'M
| state IL could not have been sustained
| by these courts. The Supreme Court o
| - cited states sin VA stated tina
| this law was a determination 10 lOcaliZ
| the property made use OF in those States
J lie tncn took M tho various points raise'
by the representative OF the TELEPHONY
| and telegraph companies and endeavore'
| to show their fallacy. In regard TO IN
system 10 be pursued, Mr.. Saunders tool
| the ground that this was matter OF de
| tail which should be left TO the Board o
| Appraisers. The effect Of this bill, he SAT-