The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1903-01-24
COLONEL LYNCH CONVICTED.

COLONEL LYNCH CONVICTED
The trial of Arthur Alfred Lynch,
member Of Parliament for Galway
City and colonel of the Irish Regi-
ment on the Boer side in the South
African war. was a very short one.
There was no reason why il should
have been long. There was very little
testimony. 1t was practically admitted
that Col. Lynch fought against Great
Britain in the Boer war. The only
point was whether the fact that he be-
came a naturalized citizen Of the
TransVaal before he took up arms
against his country saved him from
the crime of treason. The court, which
was presided over by Lord Alverstone,
held that it didn't. The view was TAX
en- that he had no intention OF becom-
ing a permanent citizen of the South
African State, but endeavored to be-
come a citizen simply for the purpose
of fighting against his country. Any
way, naturalization was preceded by
an oath of allegiance to the enemies
of Great Britain, and that in itself was
an act of treason. No doubt there was
a purpose to make an example of Col
Lynch. Besides, If we remember right
ly, he was rather offensive in the Ian
guage he used in speaking of the Brit
ish government at the time he went to
South Africa
He has been sentenced to death, but
it is doubtful if his sentence viii be
executed. Public sentiment will change
in the direction of mercy, and it is
probable that the government viii yield
to it and commute his sentence to inn
prisonment to a term of years or for
life
His trial was the first for treason,
held in London, in sixty years. The
one preceding it was that of young
man named John Francis, who fired a
pistol at Queen Victoria. The shot
went wide of the mark, but he was SEN
fenced to death. His sentence was COM
I muted to life Imprisonment, but in 1867
he was released. 1t is a pretty safe
conclusion that a similar course will
be followed in the case of Col. Lynch
THE NEW YORK FRANCHISE TAX.
There is nothing in the way of
amending the franchise tax law of
New York so as to make 1t constitu-
tional. Besides, the case has not yet
been finally decided. Two decisions
were rendered in favor of the consti
tutionality of the law before it reach
ed the appellate division of the State
Supreme Court. The latter court
held it unconstitutional by a majority
of one judge, on the ground that it
violated the home-rule feature of the
constitution 1t authorizes the State
Tax Commissioners to levy the tax.
The court held that the tax to be con-
stitutional should be levied by the as
SCISSORS of the various counties and
towns. 1t seems that as the bill was
originally drawn the tax was to be
levied by the local assessors, but the
corporations suggested that the State
Tax Commissioners be given authority
to levy 1t. Their suggestion was COM
piled with, and then they attacked the
feature of the law which had been in
corporated at their request.
OF course the case will go to the
Court of Appeals, and there it may be
held constitutional. If it should not
be, the corporations which have re-
sisted the payment of the tax wifi get
rid of about $12, 000, 900 of back taxes.
On the other hand, If the Court of APP
peals should affirm the decision, the
various cities would have to pay back
to the corporations a very large sum
that has been collected under protest.
1t is estimated that New York city
alone would have to pay back about
SIS, 900, 00O 1t is evident that the
amounts involved being so large it Is
practically certain that the case will
be carried to the court of last resort.
The effort that is being made to
have the law repealed Is a strong one.
Gov. Odell recommends its repeal in
his annual message, and the enact
ment in place of 1t of a tax on the gross
incomes of corporations. The point he
made was that the franchise tax law
is certain to be fought a long time.
even if the Court of Appeals should
hold it to be constitutional, and that
better results would be obtained from
a tax on gross incomes.
On this question of franchise tax
there does not seem to be the utmost
confidence in the Governor. 1t is re-
membered that he opposed the fran
chise tax bill when he was a member
of the Legislature. Besides, there is
a suspicion that he sympathizes with
the corporations in their fight
against the tax. If a tax on gross
incomes should be substituted for it
the corporations, in all probability,
would try to find a way to avoid pay
ing it. Corporations are not going to
pay any tax they can avoid paying.
Gov. Pennypacker of Pennsylvania