Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-01-26
BOARD TO- APPRAlSE.
ONE TO TAX TELEPHONE, TELE-
GRAPH, AND EXPRESS COMPANIES.
TO REPORT The BILL rAVORADLY.
This Decision Reached by the House
Finance Committee After an In
teresting Observation-Disclosures of Al
cohoIic 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 p. Thorn, of Norfolk.
and Major Robert Stiles. Of this city,
were heard in opposition to the bill, and
Mr.. Saunders in favor Of It, Messrs. John
Il. Moon and w. A. Glasgow. Jr., were
present but did not speak.
The committee was called to order at
Q o'clock, the body having awaited the
arrival of Mr.. Saunders. The latter, In
opening the argument, simply said that
he had endeavored to confne his bill TO
the Ohio statute. the constitutionality OF
which had been tested.
OPPOSED BY Mr.. THOM.
AR A. L. Thom of Norfolk, represent
ing the LongDistance 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-
capped 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 TO 4.
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 10 all properties similarly sit
uated. but three classes were singled out
telephone. telegraph, and express compa-
mics. Railroad companies and others SIM
iarly situated were not burdened with
this additional taxation. The principle OF
the bill could not be justified when it 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 inquisltorial in
its character. and radical in its departure
from the heretofore accepted methods OF
taxation in Virginia. 1t was more than
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 Commonwealth
by these companies. He held that no just
man in Virginia wanted to tax property
that was not located within the Common
wealth, but which was i'm 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 world justify the taxation by
the mileage system. If taxed according to
the business done in the State, then Vir-
ginia would lose by the operation OF this
system. He did not think that II would
tend TO the welfare of the State for Viz
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 the
Western Union Telegraph Company, spoke
next. He said as far as the constitu-
tionality of the law was concerned the
Supreme Court of the United States was
handicapped when IL came to consider
the statute for II had already been passed
upon by the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Major Stiles said as far as his company
was concerned they actually lost more
than A1 600 the past year on their busi-
ness in Virginia. He knew that the
Western Union could hardly conduct its
business without coming through the
State but that ii received no profit from
the latter, but was rather burdened than
otherwise. What justice was there In
discriminating against certain corpora
tiOns? Why not apply the same system
of taxation 10 the American Tobacco
Company? he asked. His company was
willing to pay its fair proportion OF the
revenues. If they were compelled to be
taxed according to this mileage system
the company would be forced to give up
certain offices, from which they derived
no revenue, but actually lost in main
tanning them. They were now kept up
for the accommodation of the public, and
the Western Union shared the expense of
these offices with the railroads. There
were only thirty-six separate and distinct
offices in the State. he said.
At the conclusion of Major Stiles's re-
marks Mr. Glasgow said that he him
self represented the Southern Express
Company, but was not then prepared to
discuss the bill SO far as it affected that
corporation.
SPEAKS FOR HIS BILL.
Mr.. Saunders, the patron of the mea-
sure, then closed the argument. He said
that the decision OF the supreme courts
of three States, backed by the sustaining
opinion Of the Supreme Court of the
United States, was sufficient 10 settle all
questions as to the constitutionality OF
such law. Other corporations might be
brought within the scope of such a law
as suggested, and he hoped some other
gentleman would take up this matter.
At present he had his own hands FULL.
In reply to a question, the speaker said
that there was bill in another commit
tee which had sucn an object In view.
Mr.. Saunders was asked who was the pa
iron OF IT. and replied that he was. This
admission. in the face of his preceding
statement. caused considerable laughter.
The contention of these companies was
that the state should not go beyond It's
limits in taxing property. Mr.. Saunders
said that the Supreme Court had taken
nm This same contention, but did not sus-
tain 1t.
He had no apprehension that when the
system of the bill was applied II could
no shown that the property In the state
,,ronosed IN be taxed had no value at all.
% would seem TO be the case from the
Genres given by Major Stiles. Corpora
.tors should not be treated as private In
d,y,duals. and the courts had recognized
th,s Fact The public had right even
40 limit the profits Of corporations
tnougb the latter resented as linguistic
riar an effort to arrive at what these
profits were 1900.
The speaker said that under present
oooditions he could not see that the young