The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1902-12-08
FRANCHISE TAX BILL
EXTENDED HEARING BY SENATE
FINANCE COMMITTEE.
MANY ADVERSE ARGUMENTS
PRESENTED BY REPRESENTATIVES,
OF CORPORATIONS.

tieth of the Property, Pay One
Attn of the States CHARACTERIZATION
of Franchises, Ii Is Claimed,
Would Retard the Growth and De-
veIOpment of the state - What
Each side Claims I'm the Issue That
Is Being Fought Out.
Atlanta, Dec. For more than five
hours yesterday afternoon the Finance
Committee of the Senate heard argu-
ment pro and con on the several pro-
posed bills designed to tax franchises
in Georgia. After the hearing the COM
mittee held short meeting and de-
cided to meet again tomorrow morn
ing at Q o'clock in the rooms of the
Secretary of the Senate to further con-
slider the matter with a view to max
ing a report at the earliest possible
moment.
Mr.. Gambler of DeKalb, author of the
franchise tax act which passed the
House several days ago as a substitute
to the bill by Mr.. Reid of Campbell,
urged the passage of that measure,
while a number of gentlemen repre-
senting various corporate interests ar
gued against that bill and the others
by Senators Comas and Shelton. which
seek to make franchises subject to the
same taxation as other property.
The hearing really began at 1920
o'clock yesterday morning. at which
time Mr.. Gambler opened the argument
by explaining the provisions of the
House measure which, he said provid-
ed the necessary machinery by which
the state could get at the taxable val
ne of franchises. Judge Hamilton Nc
Whorter representing the Southern,
presented argument against the bill
during the morning session of the COM
mittee which occupied something more
than an hour and was continued in the
afternoon.
Anderson Appeared Against II.
Judge McWhorter said the Gambler
bill was contrary to the uniformity
clause of the constitution, and sought
to set out what franchises were liable
for taxation. During the afternoon
session Henry r, Goetchins, represent
ing water power companies at Column
bus, asserted that the adoption of the
bill would prevent the necessary indus
trial development Of the state. j. RAN
dolph Anderson of Savannah, repre-
senting railroad interests, argued
against the measure along somewhat
similar lines.
Preston S. Arkwright of Atlanta,
president of the Georgia Railway and
Electric Company contended that such
law would work a great and unneces-
sary hardship on interests such as he
represented He said his company, in
addition to paying an ad valorem tax,
had also paid many hundreds of thou
sands of dollars during the past ten
years to the city Of Atlanta for street
paving and also paid a certain percent
age tax on its gross receipts To put
tax on it's franchises, he thought,
would be unjust.
Others who argued against the bill
were Hon. Roland Ellis of Macon, rep
resenting street railway interests in
that city; Col. T. B. Fielder of Allan
ia, representing telephone and tele-
graph interests; Col d. y. Dyer of Au-
gusta, representing street railway In
terests; w. c. Boykin of Augusta, rep
resenting street railway interests, and
also proposed water power company
on the Savannah river.
Would BE GeorRia's Worst Day.
Hon. Ed. T. Brown of Atlanta, repre-
senting the Seaboard Air Line, declar-
ed that it would be the worst day for
the state of Georgia when such a bill
said 1t would prevent the building OF
railroads and would effectually shut
out capital that might desire to be in
vested in the state. Other states in the
South encouraged capital by exempt
ing new Industries from taxation FOR
certain periods, and Georgia could not
afford to shut it's doors in the face
of industrial development. Col. Brown
was followed by Maj James b. Cum
ming or Augusta, representing the
Georgia Railroad. He argued briefly
against the passage of the bill
Albert Howell, Jr., stated that few
of the railroads in. Georgia paid one
eighth Of the taxes of the entire state,
and that the companies that would be
affected by the measure now pay one
fifth of the total amount of taxes of
the state. He declared that these roads
certainly did not own more than one
fiftieth of the property of the state.
He was of the opinion that the SUBJ
ject was of too great Importance to be
settled on such short notice, and be-
lieved that all companies interested
ought to have ample opportunity to be
heard on the matter before final action
was taken.
others Spoke Against 1t.
Judge Marcus w. Beck Of Griffin.
representing the American Bell Tele-
phone Company, spoke against the bill,
ana HON. JOnn ID. Little OF Columbus,
former Speaker of the House. told of
work that had been done some years
ago by the Tax Legislative Tax Com
mission, of which he had been a MEM
Der. This commission, he stated was
in constant session for upwards OF
five months and had given the ques-
ton of taxes every possible consider
alton and investigation. He was of
the opinion that the bill under discus
sion carried a constitutional point
which ought to be looked into thor
oughly before any action was taken.
Mr.. Little was the final speaker in
opposition to the bill. and Mr. Gambler
made the concluding speech, in which
he said the measure was a good one
and would certainly accomplish the
good that was intended. He read
statements 20 show that railroad and
other companies had given in their
traekage at so much per mile and yet
when they came 20 borrow money they
gave mortgages based OF a material
increase In the value Of their lines per
mile.
THE difference between the two
amounts" said he, represents some
thing, probably the value Of the franz
chise, and ] think there should be
some way IN which the state could get
az that difference In value which II
all on the side OF the company"
IL IL believed that the COMMITTEES
Will make a fepoFf favorable "a a faN