The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-12-11
BIG RAIL WAY Men
TALK ABOUT TAX
CONTINUED from First Page.)

porate any specific provision of how taxes
Should be assessed against any class Of
property in the organic law. After forty
years OF effort chaos still prevailed In the
system of taxation, and for that reason.
r. TOR no other, a rigid provision Should
not be placed in the Constitution.
Mr.. Spencer called attention to the con-
tinuaI changes and amendments OF tax
laws by5 Legislatures of all the States to
illustrate the danger OF liking a law that
could NOT be changed. He opposed the
Harrison resolution because it abandoned
tho nrinciple Of equal and uniform taxa
ton. It took away the guarantee that
those who voted q tax should help to
share its burdens.
An arbitrary tax OF so much a mile on
all roads would be an unequal burden,
since some roads were much more able
to pay than others He showed that a
straight tax of $3.50 a mile on all roads
alike would decrease the present tax on
the Norfolk and Western five per cent,
the Chesapeake and Ohio $40 per cent,
the Coast Line nine per cent, while it
would Increase the tax of the Southern
fifty-four per cent, of the Seaboard Air
Line thirty-eight per cent.
Tho general Increase of the amount OF
railroad tax would be eleven per cent.
while at $500 per mile the general increase
would be over thirty-thrce per cent. This
illustrated how unequal and unjust the
Harrison law would be.
THE MEREDITH PLAN.
Mr.. Spencer opposed the Meredith plan
because of the nuctuating values OF rail-
road securities, and illustrated this by
many instances. He cited Richmond and
Danville stock. In 1878 it was 81 a share. in
1855 it was worth $3.50, and in 1896 it was
wiped out Of existence. He read Stats
tics to show that fluctuations in securi-
ties in seventeen roads in 1900 in the
United States amounted to over seven
hundred millions of dollars. The present
We're flush times in all business. and II
Virginia fixed a basis on values now in
the Constitution, the time might come
when She could not get half as much tax
as she gets under the present system.
In concluding his elaborate and able
argument, Mr.. Spencer said the various
roads would be satisfied if the conven-
ton determined to embrace a system of
taxation in the Constitution to have it to
continue the present system of State and
county taxation on the visible property
assessed as at present, then to provide
q franchise tax based on gross earnings
and fix limit beyond which it could not
so. He thought sevcn-tenths Of one per
cent. would be a fair levy on gross earn
ings. This would remit the present tax
on net earnings. He thought this would
increase the present gross amount OF
taxes at least $4,000 each year.
THE OTHER SPEAKERS.
Mr. Spencer was followed by the other
presidents mentioned who all agreed that
the proposition submitted by him to the
committee was. in their judgment fair,
though all insisted that it was perilous
and unwise to fix it in the Constitution.
Mr.. Elliott stated that his road would
not object to franchise tax of one per
cent. on gross earnings. Mr.. Fink dWelt
on the injustice to his road by the Mere
dith r,lan. and Mr.. Stevens showed how II
:ou,d injuriously affect the chesapeake
nd Ohio.
Mr. Williams referred to the immense
AMOUNT of money that railroads had
brought into the State, the recent reduc-
ton Of local freigits and the vast IN
crease of other taxable property they
had been the means of developing. lie
urged that nothing be done which would
discourage the development or ten0 TO
prevent all classes of enterprise ana cap
ital from feeling that they were SAFE
from unjust or offensive laws. IL
The argument was concluded az ll:ao
and the committee rose, after having e%-
tended its thanks to the representatives
of the roads for their valuable and COM
nrehensive information and practical suS-
ereStiopS