Staunton spectator and vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1896-1916, 1900-03-23

Il
Ito vote for the extension. At this tim
Icame also Mr.. Richard s. Ker. "Dick
! is always pleasant. Besides he repr,
sented the supervisors, and had rest
lutions of that honorable bbdy solemn
ly protesting against the extension
and demanding that the represents
tives vote against it. There we were
i, Other members were Indifferent, e.
1 cept that they thought the question
; should be settled, and not take up th
time Of every legislature with it. Ou
senator favored, and both delegate
voted against it. June 5th is the da
the vote is to be taken. In the out
lying district only qualified voters VIII
own real estate can vote. There mus
be separate majority in the city, ant
also, in the district to be annexed, O.
there will be no expansion.
Tfe dispensary law was reported
adversely by the Senate committee.
bill of the same kind for Southampton
county passed both houses. There
was this very material difference in tn,
eyes of the guardians of the States
finances. The Southampton law takei
the State into the business as partner
with one fourth interest, whereas
lStaunton and Augusta proposed tc
divide the profits between the city ano
county. and left the State severely out
The most interesting fight was fol
a charter by the Seaboard Air Line,
which was opposed by the r. T. & P.
r. R. The State owns about 81 900, ,OO0
worth of stock in the latter road, and
has heretofore refused to charter q
parallel road, because to do SO would
depreciate her holdings. There was a
great popular clamor for the new road
and the biggest lobby Of railroad mag
mates that has been seen for years
working for it. The Seaboard offered
$500 per share for the stock owned by
the State, providing they were granted
a charter, and five years allowed them
for building the road. The State
Treasurer and the Auditor said the
stock was worth $40O per share, and
urged the legislature not to sell. The
House finance committee reported
against it on the ground that the
States interests we're not sufficiently
protected. Under these circumstan-
ces tho Valley representatives generally
voted against the charter, and with
them voted the senator and delegates
from Augusta. THE SPECTATOR says
We did wrong. We certainly were on
the unpopular side, and in q very de-
cided minority. On the other hand,
the fact must not be overlooked that
by this action of the legislature the
State will lose more than $40, 900 an
nually.
Another matter over which there
was warm contest was the employers
liability bill. This question. like
Banco's ghost, will not down. Every
session for ten years it has passed the
House, and been defeated in the SEN
ate. Back of the mOvement are "a
900 railroad men. The fact that last
year 400 employees were injured in
Virginia, and that under the doctrine
of fellow servants as laid down in the
courts they are without redress as
against their employers, the railroads,
was used with much force. But the
principle involved is far reaching and
would not stop with railroads, but
would soon apply to agriculture, and
all business, as it does in England.
That is the argument, and that it is at
least plausible, must be admitted.
One of the last bills passed was the
commissioners of valuation act The
city papers have been roasting the leg
islature ever since. I am not set for
the defense of the law. 1t certainly
has some Objectionable features. If,
however, it stands the test of the courts,
and shall prove to be the great reve-
nue. getter that it has been predicted
these features may be eliminated, and
the main purpose retained. The sole
aim of the law is to list for taxation
"invisible" personal property, such as
money, bonds, stocks, and shares OF
stock, held by banks, trust companies,
chartered institutions. and individ-
uals. It is claimed that il all the per-
sOnal property of this sort was assess
ed there would be no necessity for any
tax on real estate. A prominent state
official predicts that this law will bring
into the State treasury at least quar-
ter of million dollars. 1t is not aimed
at merchants. Under the present sys-
tenn of paying on purchases merchants
pay more than any other class of tax
payers in proportion to their capital.
The visible personal property belong
ing to the citizen in city or town is
seen by the commissioner, and assessed.
The farmer could not hide his horses
and cattle if he tried. Bonds, money,
notes. shares of stock, are known as
invisible" property because out Of
sight. The owners are like other men,
neither better or worse. Some give in
| this class of property, many do not.
Many do not, because they say it is
double taxation. They should be
made to pay taxes as the ordinary citl-
zen does. If this law is defective, or
has features Objectionable and repug-
nant some other should be framed un-
der which the ''tax-dodger" can be
brought to book, and surely the
wealthy corporations should not es-
cape. The burden of taxation should
be imposed where it can be most easily
borne. That is not now the case.
There are today large Banks doing
business in Virginia, and growing
rich, that pay no taxes to the old
State.
Retrenchment, so prominent In the
Legislature two years ago, was not in
evidence at this session. When the
position of Register of Land office was
up offered bill defining his duties
and fixing bis salary at 81 200, reduc
tion of $500. The bill promptly passed
both houses, and seemed to indicate a
disposition to be economical, but that
little saving of $500 was all that was
done in that line during the session.
1t was more than offset by increases
afterwards.