New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-05-03
4 CONFIDENCE GAME?

In their disappointment over the 1rahchlse
tax decision some of the lawyers for the IRAN
chise holding corporations are making most III
terestinC and illuminating admissions. 1here
has been a widespread feeling that the corpora
.ions did moi show the best of good faith when
they came forward saving that they would not
object 10 hearing larger share of the public
burdens if they were only imposed wisely ana
iustly and suggesting that the assessment OF
franchises ought not TO be left TO local assessors
They used the Capitalization of assessment
which they themselves proposed as the cher
Ground to escape taxation. Now they Civ
inc reasons for appeal which hardly square
with their previous expressions Of willing
ness 10 nav a percentage of gross receipts in
lien Of the present tax, which they declared so
imnracticable and unequal. On the day after
tho decision Mr. William II. Page, jr., was
ouoted as speaking for the Metropolitan Street
Railway Company as follows:
The grounds on which the appeal will:be taken
are two: First, that no State may pass law
tmpatring the obligations of contracts; and, sec
ond. that no citizen OF the United states may De
law We hold that, since the railroad
companies paid certain price for the use of the
streets of New-York, they were then taxed on
taxed again.
Mr. Charles A. Collin. counsel for the Brook
Ivn traction companies, is quoted as saying:
believe that it has been thoroughly estab-
Iisbed that we were taxed once when we got
our franchises from the city, and that therefore,
We cannot be taxed again.
Now. If these expressions mean anything they
mean that any sort of tax on franchises Is I'M
constitutional as a violation OF contract They
mean that the franchise holders believe that
the terms of the franchise grants some of them
for of
an annual percentage of earnings, some for a
car license and some for nothing at all
specify the sum total of what can be collected
in any form as taxes on their franchises.
What then. becomes of all their smooth offers
TO consent TO some other form of tax if only
this objectionabl special franchise law was
repealed? What has been their motive in ask
ing for a substitution of percentage OF gross
earnings? II franchise grant is a contract
obligation which q tax on FRANCHISES as real
estate violates, then tax on franchises In the
| form OF percentage exactiOns In excess Of those
nominated in the bond violates it. If these
| lawyers are right, they would have as good
case against the percentage tax which they nave
urged the people to adopt. Can 1t be that the
| assurances of q readiness to share the pubic
burdens were dishonest? If the companies had
| succeeded in getting this law repealed and a
new one Such as was prOpoSeu last "Inlel O
| acted, would they have broken faith and fought
that as they did the State assessment which
was devised especially to please them: We
should like 10 see Mr.. Page and Mr.. Collin
| reconcile their doctrine OF contract obligation
with any sort of franchise taxation 1t looks as
if the corporations had been trying to play a
| confidence game when they spoke fair and Of
| fered to help in passing proper franchise
| tax law in place OF the one they have been
| fighting.