Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-10-06
CORPORATION FRANCHISES.

! CORpOH ALTON IHANthiS''H'
The law passed at the last session OF
the Now York Legislature, and popuiary
known "a the Ford franchise law, has Tor
its object the COLLECTION OF State taxes
from what may be termed the intahsiDie
property Of corporations.
II is represented that many corpora
tions which pay little or no taxes upon
personal and real property have noateo
immense amounts OF stock, and pay out
great sums in dividends. Therefore, 1t Is
-argued that franchises that are so Valua-
bic ought to yield the State more revenue
than they do.
When the Ford law was passed most
extravagant notions were entertained by
many as TO the revenue it would produce.
They reminded us Of the expectations OF
some Virginia people with respect to the
profitableness of our oyster-bods. 1t was
believed that there were millions In IT.
but now more reasonable Wow seems
| 10 be taken Expectations do not run so
high: vet the belief is still entertained
that tho law will prove very helpful to
tho State Treasury. However, 1t Is not
doubted that it win be attacked in the
courts, and until the State gets a favor
able decision 1t IS not safe for it to count
upon any revenue much or little.
The valuation Of franchises--the as
sessments-are 10 be made by commits
sioners appointed. ostensibly by the Gov
ern. but really by Tom Platt. And right
there il is foreseen that the law can,
and probably will, be used TO rake in
money for the Republican machine. 1t
is among the possibilities that the ma
chine may get more money out of 1t
than the State does. In view OF what
is known about politics in the city and
State Of New York, no one should won
der if the machine should make the
assessments very light upon such cOrpO-
rations as are friendly to Mr. Platt and
expect to be compensated for that ser
vice.
Unless the law has been wisely safe
guarded and is TO be equitably admins
tered. we can see how it may be made
an engine Of injustice. Let rs suppose
there are two corporations each Of which
has a franchise worth 100000. Let us
further suppose that one Of them has
real and personal property assessed for
taxation to the amount of S22j.0OO, and
the other has such property of a value
only of $4,000 Ought these two cor
porations to pay the same franchise tax?
Again. there may be two corporations
one a producer of wealth.. g., "a large
employer of labor and buyer of raw ma
terial I'm the State--and the other a con-
Germ which is OF little public utility, in
the respects mentioned. u their fran
| chses are worth about the same. ought
the same burden of taxation to be i'm
posed upon each?
These and many other questions have
been, or will be, raised. New York may
rest assured that it is only at the begin
ming of the matter; but it is not to be
| denied that the tendency of the times is
10 meet the ever-increasing expenses Of
| cities and States by ievying greater taxes
than ever before upon corporation fran
| ChiseS Everywhere the public IS willing
| to see such taxes levied. but the difficulty
| is TO frame a general law upon the SUBJ
| ject. 1t is certain that the State that
drives it's coulter too deep will expel CAPT
tai, business, and enterprise TO more lib
| eral States.
We know that in one case Virginia,
without doing herself the least good shut
the door in the face of corporation
which would have added many thousands
Of dollars per annum TO her revenue.
! What Virginia lost another State gained.
Where taxes are TO he levied. no matter
under what name or title, the State levy
ing them should beware lest it be guilty
Of a folly equal to that Of the man who
is said to have killed the goose that laid
the golden egg.