The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-01-28

ested in that part of the case. | shall
ask nothing but an acknowledgment,
from you that your statement IS NOS
true.
To make the decision definite, hereby
offer to submit the paper referred to-. to
any five leading and active business men
of Richmond. to determine whether 1t
justities or contradicts your assertion.
provided you will agree to accept their
opinion. This is a fair proposition Every
citizen can understand it, and. your ac-
ceptance or rejection OF 1t Will ENABLE
every citizen to decide how much confi-
dence you have in the opinion of other
business on your understanding of a bus
mess question.
You say that the Sinking Fund of the
Richmond Traction Company. to which
$3.50 a year is charged, is imaginary
say this is untrue
The facts of the transaction of which
YOU speak are that the Richmond Trac-
ton Company submitted paper. giving
its views of what would be a fair rate
of taxation for it to pay and opposing
Il proposition to tax us ten per cent.
on our gross receipts, in addition to the
full tax on our property. we showed ".
to be unreasonable. oppressive and az"
structive The unanimous decision or
the Council. comprising of course ths
Finance Committee. composed OF Messfs.
Hariwicke Gordon Wallerstein, Cottrel:.
Carrier Harrelsou and others OF tne:r
kind, sustained our contention. They are
successful capable and practical business
men and large taxpayers; certainly as
able. as honest and as much interested IN
taxing us and relieving other Taxpayers
as YOU can be I am willing to submit
to the people of Richmond the compara-
tive value of the Judgment of these gem
tlen,en then composing the Finance CONS
| mittec and your own. They are not serl-
| orally regarded as unWary and easy VIC
| tins of sophiStrieS and false oook-keep-
| ing
! we were paying at this time 5 per cent.
| on our gross receipts in lieu of all taxes
! to the city Under our franchise, this
| arrangement was TO he changed January
| l. 1900 We never asked a reduction OF
/ taxation. The Council fixed Tor us
/ schedule of taxation, making It "te on QUE
/ gross receipts and full city tax. from
t which we had formerly been exempt.
! Furthermore. we were required to pay
/ a graduated increase of . per cent on
| all our gross receipts above s2uV,oOo 70
| $4,000 { per cent on all above sJh.uW
| to Sio0, Goo and 10 per cent on all IN e3-
4. cess of 100000 You tell the public thae
i the Council reduced our taxes from per
/, cent to 314 1 cannot believe that YOU
/ intended to deliberately deceive the pub
! lie by suppressing the real facts. ana
! must assume that you have forgo.ten
| them tdllSd TO
! tainiy I cannot on any other SUPPOSE
! ton. understand your statement printed
! in your interview of yesterday tn the
| Dispatch, that are asking to be re.
licyed from taxation. That statements
is as directly contradicted by the facts.
| all OF record, as is that accompanying
it. that our STOCKHOLDERS. to whom We
| desire to pay dividends. paid nothing foP
| their stock: the fact being that nne-
tenths of this stock was paid for in cash
by actual investors: the balance was
| earned by adequate labor.
/. You say We pleaded for and secures
reduced taxation. This IS not true In
| der the OLD rate, in force up 20 January.
! 1900. on gross receipts, in lieu OK all other
! taxation. we would have paid for tns
| year 1851. sfI. 760.4i. Under the new rate,
81. per cent on gross receipts to 100000,
| ard 5 per cent. on excess, together WITH
/ $40 on our real and personal properly
We actually paid for the year 1901 sl3.-
t 957.1o. or an Increase of 90 due Sole
" to the Increased rate OF taxation.
Furthermore at the same rates OF M
crease in business that last year showed
over the previous year, it will only DO
/ about six years before the maximum
rate of 10 per cent. will be reached