The news & observer., 1901-03-09

raised in future, voted no. He was in
favor of the tax, but thought this was
rather steep. He feared litigation.
| peace is what we want" said he.
The question then was upon Judge Gra-
hams second amendment, which he had
sent forward it will be remembered,
after his first amendment was defeated
on Thursday morning in Committee of the
Whole. The effect of this was to so in
crease the per mile earnings tax that the
revenue therefrom would amount to
something like $64 900, instead of $4,000.
This amendment was lost by vote of
% to So. The following explained their
votes:
Judge Graham: Yesterday we saw
great corporation relieved of a tax of
81 900, a mere bagatelle to them. Today
we see railroads with an earning capacity
of $3.50 900 600 relieved of over $25O,000 in
taxes ask if this tax of 100000 is not
low enough. l vote yes.
Mr. Alexander voted no because he did
not believe in depressing the railroad
companies.
Judge Connor: This House does not be-
lieye the railroads of one dollar of tax
alton. The question is whether or not
this House shall put an additional tax
upon them, and whether or not this House
shall stand by its Committee on Finance
and do what is right I vote no.
Mr. Gather voted aye. He thought
this amendment not out of keeping with
some of the taxes levied on the bill upon
other industries.
MIR Gattis said that every phase OF the
question had been considered by the com
mittee. They thought the tax levied in
the bill was fair, taken with the tax the
railroads were already paying and that
it was in keeping with that levied on
other corporations. He voted no. be-
cause we We're not relieving anybody of
taxation, but getting an additional reve-
nue. Of nearly $40 600.
Mr.. Smith said he considered the prin-
ciple of this tax right. He had voted no
on the first amendment, because he
thought the amount excessive. Now he
votes aye because he considered that this
amendment was no more discriminating
against the railroads than the merchants
tax which had been adopted was against
| them.
The Revenue Bill then passed its third
and final reading by vote of n to IS.
Mr.. Gattis moved to reconsider and lay
that motion on the table. Carried.
ANTI-FREEZE-o OUT BILL
The bill to prevent discrimination
against independent manufacturers and
| dealers was taken up This makes it a
misdemeanor for any corporation whose
capital stock is greater than S25O,00O to
sell goods for a price less than a fair
| cost of production and a profit of 10 per
cent thereon. 1t shall be the duty of the
Corporation Commission to enforce the
provisions of the act causing corporations
doing business in the State to furnish an
annual sworn statement of the cost ot ar
ticles made, and price of which they arc
| sold.
This bill was introduced by Mr.. Will
son. of Caswell. He made a clear-c cut
statement of the evils done by large cor
porations crushing out all competition on
the part of smaller manufacturers and
dealers by under selling them.
Mr. Baldwin said there had been many
laws proposed to prevent charging mere
than a certain price, but this was the
first he had ever seen TO compel charging
of more than a certain price for goods
Mr.. Mason said he, had seen great
deal of proposed legislation but this was
the most unwise legislation he had ever
seen. There was not cotton mill in the
State that made anything like 10 per
cent. Ee thought the gentleman had
some particular corporation in mind, and
if so, the gentleman should stipulate
what corporation he was aiming at. 1t
seemed to him this was the rankest of
legislation that had been proposed. If
you want to drive out foreign corpora
d,.fxr f1oY,, hut ~,,s#
our own corporations"
Judge Connor said he could not vote
for this bill, but there was an economic
principle involved in it that would doubt
less some day have to be met. There is
no doubt that it is necessary to throw
some kind Of protection around the small
Ter industries. His attention had been
called TO the way the American Tobacco
Company had undertaken to freeze out a
certain concern. 1t was a great problem
to determine how to limit the great cor
porations without destroying the smaller
ones. We all know that in these inn
mense corporations were doing all in their
power to crush out all industries that
came in their way. He wished a bill
could be prepared that would have the
desired effect
Mr.. Wilson Withdrew the DILL as ne ala
not wish it killed by a Legislature elected
on a platform against trusts.
ANTITRUST BILL PASSED.
Senator Wards bill to protect com
merce and transportation from cOmbina-
tons monopoly and conspiracy, was next
taken up.
The bill was reported without prejudice
by the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Robin
son said that Senator Ward had intro
duced this bill with the idea that it was
the latest Texas act on the subject Mr.
Robinson explained that he had examined
into the tax law and had offered a sub
stitute for Mr. Wards bill but the com
mittee had amended the original bill
The amendments provide that corpora
tions selling in other States besides this
State should be included; that in case the !
Attorney General fail TO institute suit
under section three, any citizen may in
stitute such action.
The bill, which has been printed in full |
in this paper, is practically the Texas !
law preventing the combination of cor
porations for the purpose of controlling
the prices of articles.