The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-07-07

lions are made to pay taxes upon their
| entire capital stock, and also taxes have
| been levied upon the certificates of stock
| in the hands of the individual stockhoid-
ers.'
In the present law this is avoided by
| the express provision that Individual
| stockholders in any corporation paying a
| tax on its capital stock shall not be re-
| CURED to pay any tax on said stock or
| list the same"
| Thus it will be seen that in our anxiety
| to relieve these corporations and their
stockholders from onerous taxation We
| may have been guilty, according to our
| Supreme Court, of passing an unconstitu-
| tional act
1t seems to us that if Mr.. Pous argr-
ment for the repeal of the present law as
| 1t affects the interests of his clients, Is
| for the purpose of having the old law re-
enacted that some of us who ara ourselves
| interested in these corporations will have
| to take action to prevent this "tenden-
| cy' In view of the actual tendency of the
Legislature on the matter of the super
vision and taxation of private corpora
lions we do not anticipate any change in
| the policy OF these corporations, and as
evidence of this we have JUS read in an
| Atlanta paper an article in reference to
some new cotton mill with the following
heading in display type Lost Large In
vestment; $1,000, 900 goes to North Caro-
lima instead of to Georgia And within
the past few days we have been told by
the president of a large cotton mill in
North Carolina, and a person interested
in number of other industrial enter.
prises in the State that the present reve-
| nue. law was far more equitable than the
old law and that his only reason for COM
plant was that certain old sections which
had not been enforced we're now being
put in effect b. the Tax Commission I'M
der the Machinery Act.
We were ready to agree with him that
there was still room for great improve
ment, and our hope is that the agitation
OF the subject will bring about further
needed reforms.
In regard to She situs of the corporation
for taxation we can agree with Mr. Pou
entirely. In our opinion the entire taxes
OF the corporation should be paid where
the property is located. In other words
the tax on real estate and chatteIs
should be paid where the property is
located, and all other taxes at the home
OF the corporation. This is done in the
case OF the corporations he represents
and 1t should be the rule for banks also
1t seems to us Mr. Pou has constructed
an imaginary fabric for the purposes of
destroying it. The only explanation we
can conceive is that he believes this is
one of the present evils" (Which must be
the new revenue law and not one of the
threatened dangers" (Which would be a
return to the old one)-the trouble with
us being that We are not astute enough
to decide when he is referring to one or
tie other.
The latter portion of Mr.. Pou's address
is devoted to discussion of license or
privilege taxes and here we find ourselves
again agreeing with him. These taxes
are the cause of more irritation than the
collection of ten times the amount of
revenue produced by them would be, if
collected in some other way. Mr.. pou,
however, does not seem to appreciate the
situation.
We could not afford to relinquish the
revenue derived from licenses until we
saw some other source from which an
equal amount could be raised. If Mr.
Pou and others had not been so strenu-
Gus in preventing the enactment of GER
tain laws which were proposed, Te"could
very easily abolish the annoying license
taxes.
For instance if Mr.. Pou had not been
so violently opposed to the tax on cor
poration and municipal loans, (Which by
the way is not tax on the corpora
ton as he makes it appear, but sim
ply another and sure method of collecting
the tax on a large amount of personal
property We would no doubt have raised
more than enough revenue to do away
with license tax Oh the books
Mr.. Pous reference to this tax is an
adroit attempt to illustrate a supposed
discrimination against his corporations,
while the tax is not a tax on the cor
poration at all. If he will refer to the
case or Commonwealth VS.. Lehigh Valley
Railroad. 129 Pa. he will see that it is
expressly declared that the tax on corpor-
ate loans is identical in character with
the tax on personal property.
His discussion of this tax and his re-
ference to the fact that it does not allow
the creditor of a corporation an offset
of his debts against his credits. and the
further assertion that the law would find
as fact that the creditors of corpora
tions will not list these credits and that
therefore the corporation must list for
them, opens up a field of discussion which,
does not properly belong here, but upon
which we have very decided convictions
Mr.. Pou enumerateS certain axions
which comprehend what he terms an
ideal system of taxation" They are very
cleverly put and would probably be
agreed to by almost anyone. He may of
course be ignorant of the fact, but it is
nevertheless true that it is not enough
to be convinced that certain proposed
measures are equitable and just to be
able to have them enacted into law
SOMETIMES the interests affected win
confer with each other and employ the
ablest lawyer obtainable to defeat these
measures. We have heard of certain inter-
ests representing an investment of $780,
100000, having lawyers before the last
Legislature to prevent the enactment o
laws of which they did not approve.
Mr.. Pou hopes that when his ideal sly s.
tenn is law it will not be necessary to
"exnor'"'"rt with foreign laws and novel
ideas in TAXATION and probably it. will
not be, for when that time comes we will
not be confronted with the novelty of a
bankrupt treasury
L was impressed a short time ago with
maxim of Pudd 'nhead Wilson: "To be
good is noble; but to show 9th ers how to