New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-05-29
APPROVED BY Mr.. PLATT.
RADICAL DEFECT OF ORIGINAL FRAN.
CHISE BILL CURED, HE SAYS.
ALL REPUBLICAN INFLUENCES He A.
sERTs. WORKED TOGETHER HARMo-
NIOUsLY TO BRING ABOUT
THE NEW LAW

THE NEW LAW
Senator Platt decided to at rest last night
the many reports which have been printed say
ing that Governor Roosevelt had forced the
Franchise Tax measure through the Legislature
against the wishes OF the Republican organiza-
ton. He accordingly Issued formal statement
fatty calling all such reports "misinterpreta-
tons and drawing attention to the fact that
the bill received the support OF eighty-hve Re-
publicans in the Assembly out OF eighty seven
present No such result would have been poss-
BILE, Mr.. Patt asserts. unless every Republican
influence In all OF the sixty counties Of the state
had been working together harmoniously for the
success OF the meas The Senator strongly
approves the amended bill as signed by the Gov
ernor Here is his statement:
Persistent efforts have been made by the DEM
ocratic newspapers and some others TO have II
appear that there serious divisions In the
Republican party concerning the proposition to
tax franchises. The best answer TO these mis-
representations. for that is what they are, was
supplied by the vote which passed the Franchise
Tax bill last week in the Legislatures exraor-
dnary session. In the Senate every Repunn-
can member without an exception, supported the
BILL and In the Assembly II was supported ny
eighty-fve Republicans. out or eighty-seven
present No such result as this would nave
been possible. of course. unless every kepunn-
can influence In all the sixty counties cf tne
State had been working together harmoniously
for the success Of the measure.
While 1t Is true that no forecast OF this legis-
ation had been given in any Republican state
platform. and. although 1t was not included In
the list Of subjects upon which action was an
ticipated by the leading members or the lfgis-
lattre when IL assembled in January. yes tne
matter of a franchise tax had been mucn dis-
cussed and the conclusion pretty generaliy
reached that tax of this sort must soon pe
levied felt. however, and many others shared
/ the feeling that certain possible consequences
Of the passage Of such law by Republican
Legislature were to be avoided. All aereen s anss
franchises were a proper and necessary supject
of taxation. The Court OF Appeals hah denhen
them as property Once acquired. the posses
sor's right to their free enjoyment was sain -
be as sacred as his right to the ground on Whicn
his house built They were moreover =
producing property. They were source OK
large income and no Republican leader IN OF OF
out Of the Legislature, could question: or III
question the Legislatures duty 10 require tnIs
species Of property to pay It's propor'iona.e
share Of the public taxes. The diHlcuity lsy y"
determining what its share was. ana TINS him-
Guilty was so obvious that many felt, as dlo,
that the matter should be gone at carefuuy. ,nat
It should be looked into by prudent ana s,,s,,
BILE men in the conservative republican sp,l,s .
and not after the manner Of yellow )ournahs's
and Popocratic demagogues
TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION.
Accordingly it was agreed that joint COM
rnittee Of the Legislature should he appointed
~ consider the question of taxation In general
to examine into the condition and results or our
present taxing laws, and to report at the next
session, and it expected that law taxing
franchises would be the outcome or TINS inquiry.
Throughout the controversy over the ford Dill
| thought and am still inclined TO think tnae
| Il was not in the public interest 20 anticipats
the action OF this joint legislative committees.
In almost every Legislature over which the he-
publican party has had control for consia-
erable period OF years acts have been passed
tending to the relief OF the farms and home:
of the people from their too heavy ouroen OF
taxation. Two important and wel-denned es-
amples Of this legislation are the lnheritsnce
Tax law and the Liquor Tax law, ooth OF tnenl
displaying In their construction precisely that
sprit OF progress and conservatism Wisely
blended which distinguishes the Republican
party when it comes TO deaI Win ,an grssr
lie questions These two laws have gwen grsae
results They are now the settled policy OF the
State No political party would dare 10 moiest
either OF them and l. do not wish 10 see inc
Republican party responsible for so serious a
measure as law taxing franchises whicn nas
been less carefully considered as to all us pos
sble effects than the two successiu' measures
just mentioned. 80, -.
principle Of sound legislation was violated. IL
was carelessly drawn and thoughtlessiy enact.
cd The statement has been made that the ford'
bill was before the Legislature for PERIOD OF
weeks, that committee hearings were mao upon
II and that II was deliberately reported rom
the Senate Finance Committee. But these CIR
CT instances do not carry with them tneir usuai
Significance The fact that joint committee
of the LEGISLATURE TO be appointed anu
that the whole subject OF State taxation was 10
come under it's careful scrutiny In order mat
a new and perfect system might be adopte1 py
the next Legislature, had the natural erect.
apart from it's plainly crude provisions or caus-
ing the Ford bill to be lightly regarded. Not
until it had passed the Senate not really un,il
the very last days OF the session. was It's enact
mont into law considered probable. Ana: how
ever long IL had been before the Legislature.
and however many had been the hearings upon
tha ~
II was not intelligenty considered. IL provided
not the slightest hint OF the processes by wnicn
the value OF a franchise was TO be ascertained.
II conided this duty together with the assess
ment Of the tax, to no fewer than sixty dlner-
ent boards-the local assessors In each or tne
counties in the State. II paid no attention 70
snv Of the large volume OF existing legislation
under which corporations. and often the fan-
chises they hold. are already subjected 10 taNa-
tion II simply said in effect. that franchise
values must be taxed just real estate values
were taxed and directed the local assessors to
go ahead and tax them. II seems 10 me that
eny child can that this was no proper way
OF covering important a matter.
NO DIFFICULTY ANYWHERE.
The value OF franchise is not like the value
~ a house and lot No difficulty can be expert
enced anywhere in the State in obtaining fair
eppraisaI OF real estate. and local appraisers In
the very nature OF things the yer" best that
can be had These values moreover. change
comparativey little from year 10 year, ana
every change when change occurs. Is generaiy
as TO It's locality; but a franchise value depenas
on all sorts OF things. II may be worth Tort
une to-day and worth nothing tomorrow, ana
what its value is at any particular time ~ NOT
matter OF exact information 20 be fixed by
record OF sales and by comparison with other
similar properties but remains al pes, a na'ser
OF difficulty And even In the case OF rear es"
tate although experience has proved local as
SCISSORS 10 be the best means OF appraisal, u 10
we'll known that in some counties. notwth-
Landing the law assessment is made sometimes
upon so per cent OF the value. sometimes upon
100 per cent and no method OF equalization mas
vet been discovered which has enabled the state
70 be sure that every county was paying its due
nronortion OF State taxation. What then, could
ha more unfair or less In the public interest