The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-02-28
THE HISTORY OF SECTION FIFTY AND WHAT
1T WILL DO.
norton of the burden of taxation. "

/ portion OF the burden OF taxation.
These two sections were offered by
Senator Overman. who then represented
Rowan county. These sections sounded
we'll, and it was thought by some that
they would accomplish what was intend
! ed, but when railroad property was re-
! assessed in 1899 the railroads secured
! their injunction, and that brought on the
! litigation, which was not finally settled
until the Legislature of 1901 was in ses-
| sion. During the session of this Legis-
| lature it was realized that the law bear
! ing on the assessment of railroad prop
| erty should be radically changed and
made so mandatory that the Railroad
| Commission would be left very little dis
! erection in the matter.
ut was argued if this was done and
the Commission did not carry out the
| law as directed, any taxpayer might Sc
cure an order. Il suppose legally il
would be designated a mandamus) re-
quiring them to do so. To accomplish
! this. section fifty was reported by the
| Finance Committee and adopted by the
Legislature. Sections so and 81 of the
law of 1899 do not appear in the law
of 1901, and section so was adopted to
take their place
"At the time it was adopted the rail-
roads had knowledge of it and every
section of the revenue law of 1901, in any
way affecting railroads was discussed
with their Representatives 1t was
printed for days before it was finally
adopted and was discussed as thoroughly
as any law ever was 1t was under
stood however, that it would not be put
in operation until real estate was next
assessed, which would be in 1903. This
was in accordance with the agreement
reached with the Governor when the tax
suits were settled. Carrying out that
agreement it fell to me to actively OPP
pose a proposition to increase the taxa
ton of railroads by levying a tax on
their gross earnings, which was actually
passed by the House in 1901, but was re-
considered and finally defeated.
Whether the representatives of the
railroads at that time had determined to
attempt to secure the repeal of section
fifty before it would be put in operation,
of course, no one can tell. If they had
determined on this course they were very
certainly acting in bad faith with the
members of the Finance Committee Of
the Legislature of 1901.
Il feel sure every member of that COM
mittee will bear me out in these state
ments for my own recollection is now
very clear in regard to the whole matter.
IN. S. WILLARD"
There has not been a man in the Leg
slature of North Carolina in decade
so well equipped in knowledge of taxa
ton and finance as Mr. Willard. He is
as honest and as independent as he is
we'll informed and Industrious. His re-
cital of how section fifty came to be in
corporated in the machinery act is in it.
self an argument against the assault that
is now being made upon it. If any leg
slator is not familiar with the history
of section fifty and the causes that led
to it's adoption, Mr. Wizards succinct
statement furnishes all the information
needed.
The action of the Tax Commission in
Michigan and the result as shown in the
clipping from the Railway Age, justifies
the wisdom of the Legislature of North
Carolina of 1901 in putting section fifty
in the machinery act If Michigan in
creased its tax receipts 81 1866, 522, or
ninety per cent. by considering actual
value" in assessment of railroad proper
ty, would not something like the same
percentage of increase result in North
Carolina? And in the answer to that
question do you not find the reason why
the railroads are so anxious to cut the
heart out of section fifty?
The action of the Tax Commission in
Michigan and the result as shown in this
clipping from the Railway Age justifes
the wisdom of the Legislature of North
| Carolina of 1901 in putting section fifty
in the machinery act.