The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-07-07
Points Out Inconsistencies
Relates Some History.
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1901
The Part That Mr.. Pou Had in Draw
ing the Bill as Passed.
PLEA FOR ExeMP TON OF CORPORATIONS
Corporations and Corporation Attorneys Pre-.
vented the Repeal Of the Special Taxes.
The DIffic uliies Met With by the
Committee in Framing Bill

ne UlIIiC uttleS Mtt WIN ny TIC
Committee in Framing i Bill
To the Editor: Mr.. James H. Pou's
address before the recent meeting of the
Bar Association on the subject of the tax
alton of private corporations, it seems to
me, is intended to unduly alarm persons
whose investments consist of property in
the shares of these associations. In fact
Mr. Pou leaves us in doubt as to his own
convictions on the subject by stating in
the outset that it is against the threat
ened danger, rather than against pres
ent evil" which he wishes to give warn
ing and concluding his address by char
acterizing the law as irrational and ine-
quitable and prophesying that the next
General Assembly will promptly repeal it.
He complains of the searching" pro-
visions of the law, requiring corporations,
as he says, to make a ''full disclosure
of their affairs and then destroys the
force of his argument and demonstrates
that it is not publicity which he objects
to, by admitting that they would be will
ing to answer all the questions of the
Shorter Catechism if discrimination in
taxation was made in their favor, leav-
ing us to surmise that when they came to
answer the first question of the catechisnl
the reply would probably be in corpora
tion vernacular that mans chief end is
to avoid paying taxes and place the bur-
den on some other fellow"
Mr.. Pou then recites at length the
questions asked of corporations when
making their reports to the Auditor, at
this time giving as reason for them that
mot a dollar may be left off the tax
list" in which reason We are glad to
concur, and intimates that the individual
who singly is able to erect mill is not
subject to precisely the same require
ment. He, of course, knows that the law
provides even for the individual that mot
a dollar shall be left off the tax list" and
he also knows that no way has been dis
covered by which every dollar can be
placed there in the case of the individual.
but that we can come much nearer in the
case of corporations.
But what strikes us with wonder is that
his next comment is as follows: "And
strange to say, this is required only of
those corporations chartered and or
ganized under the laws of this State,''
characteriZing this as to his mind "un-
wisdom double distilled
In House Bill No. 1913, which was the
Revenue Bill reported from the Finance
Committee, in the section under consid-
GRAFTON, it was provided that all corpora
tions now or hereafter organized or in
corporated under any law of this State,
UNDER THE LAWS OF ANY OTHER
STATE OR TERRITORY OR BY THE
UNITED STATES, OR BY ANY FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT, AND DOING BUSINESS
IN AND LIABLE TO TAXATION WITH
IN THIS STATE, OR HAVING CAPITAL
OR PROPERTY EMPLOYED OR USED IN
THIS STATE, BY OR IN THE NAME OF
ANY CORPORATION WHATSOEVER, OR
IN ANY OTHER MANNER, SHALL
MAKE A REPORT TO THE AUDITOR,
&C, &C.
During the sessions of the Legislature
Mr. Pou addressed circular letter to the
members with the heading "SUGGES-
TIONS RELATIVE TO THE REVENUE
ACT" In this letter Mr.. Pou calls at
tention to the fact that the act might be
construed so as to require foreign cor
porations to pay tax on their capital stock,
and also all property they have in the
State" and suggests that this may be
remedied "by striking out all after the
word State in line s, down to and in
Guiding the word manner at the end Of
the l4th line" (The part italicized above.
Mr. Pou not only urged this change in the
letter referred to, but also at several
meetings of the finance committee, and
now after his beguiling eloquence has per-
suaded the Legislature to make the
change, with unparalleled ingratitude he
stigmatizes it as "unwisdom double dis
titled" If Mr.. Pou had shown during
the session of the Legislature the same
solicitude for our State corporations he
does now, and had not taken such an ac-
tive part in the distillation process him
self the obnoxious section would read
differently.
1t is impossible for the public to APP
preciate the difficulty of securing consis-
tent and equitable tax laws. Afyer q
committee has given mature elaboration
to the matter and has decided upon GER
tain measures which they propose to pre-
sent, the representatives of the interests
affected will secure the insertion of some
clause or the elimination of some sec
tion which destroys the purpose and in
tent of the statute and may make the
Wuo1S IRRATIONAL.
Mr.. Pou admits that the State of Penn
sylvania asks the same questions of cor
porations which we ask and he knows that
they ask others which we do not ask
and which go much more into the details
OF the corporations business, and justi-
lies this inquisitiveness by the fact that
the state of Pennsylvania levies on pri-
vate corporations a tax for all purposes
of $500 on the thousand while corpora
tions in Wilmington, Raleigh, Charlotte,
Asheville and other towns pay more than
$4,000 on the $1,000 valuation OF course
the tax on the corporations of Whining.
ton, Raleigh, &C., include county and
city taxes, and while the corporations of
Pennsylvania may not pay this tax to the
counties and cities he failed to mention
that Pennsylvania requires the treasurer
of every corporation to deduct a tax of
$500 on the thousand dollars valuation
from all scrip, bonds, or certificates Of /
indebtedness issued by any corporation"
and 1t also requires that all corpora
lions shall pay bonus of one third OF