The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1904-09-30
TIIIzEEIAlRI(lNlE
W EnEDUCED
contInaed IRON seeond Page.


contInae
ratsrsfused III alloW
gotszon this AIM i
AS u WhstheerB or not they would abols
u They are
HI i4ss failura and ySeffo q s hIft8
aItt neutrality-suspicious. IS nmnerest
I4,ncorabe. i tried oamend.
msamendment pro
ssion orsacapitatio & x4forsonesdo
gss. clearlyS$1lnconstitution
aasand was 50 ruled bySpeakser Moafs.##
ssTIa Republican; amendment amends
SsE4Hssec 81 13@of heSconstifutfon under
of landStitessswnile the Dem
$ssraffc8 article
&sarYIing ssauaIifeafifonns 0 voting:
@THesDenaocratIc.how that$the5 Re ep'yf
circumstances opposed Q any capiitEaattiioonrs
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
Sincere.
sSsSx she#Tanocrats had@been sincere
pol1@tax eff
9aeaivs fheySwould have supported
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Of acts Of
sMhieh5sectio provides for b
Observation-Disclosures tax BY b asses
sur atsStheS&u the tax is levied
gly him andsgissgsshhiinm full oW Vein!
lesmataerT did b not '1t9t
sHpEsaorE atbiI1@zThe shoWed by
ahafaVota ssthatstheyzWere not int txa
sstsd Observation-Disclosures the poll tax AZ
Observation-Disclosures, forsWhensTer IN
sslIs sz5gearsssofsfne this.
ssase#haKsths really tried to pass
bEasters Iaws e5IIls They.
saaS4haMRay9nhicans#wh they.
ssrisd4asnassIha aWsTaferred I which.
VIII ssIInsTa1ka@pass55le thesseonection Of;
ss25s parsaeaEsBfS poIIfa The
revenue
hey @opposeth 1lctl Ct
fassHssassssssa1TtheySsW isasssehanceSto
sffssSranchisa Observation-Disclosures 9 ],
#Ssack governmgnt
fThsir#posing
sg4ha8Fnandso observation-disclosures IS:
asssdu emocrat claInnsnnoWaathat
neyss@sWant IA
SonasdoIIar iii ut at
nasstovote.A BILL
ffheirSasfinnat Softhe5
vaaIuasoIAthe ctiVe franchise:
sNsSsssss 49,
s@ @sI OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES Enactment,
#Ea Ills 8 down
sRsifshol House
AfTs#a9.s3oY24,@21ssS1Ian r. Sen
axe JILL G.s7 Apparent
Nxhe
observation-disclosures bills ac.|
Observation-Disclosures # ofSthe e
sIaEsslEe Wo9rksa vel fiandSgood.
are gladIoseethe Democrats are salts
aaIwIthssomeThing,sb are#someWhatS
assa
n-ntAdiscoveTed sons fearful
HsaaIafng4and some terr1ble&attaeks5on
Ae9paop1ess rights sbetWeen the#l1nes
afshgsezmeasures:It Twas certainly
srsSsoEersighf#that these%bi1Is were not,
sseaIhngly criticised and we would not
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. snthor of b pam
rhtgrWeretaken to@tasl1f for his failure
tasdIscover some Woeful1y bad provis-
lu1ssinFIhem.
d writer makes up for his fail
mem the$#next part of the document
&aSwhiclhe Jumps rirnbly to Senate
biII@ providing that the estate
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. shall be list
led hyappraisers appointed by he
SsG0iTE5C LgWi1OSS OtueI A5peiSoldi 1SplS
auutatives is authorized. The writer
says that assbad amendment is found
IN that paragraph which avs that
no judgment shall be rendered upon
any note; bond o~r@cNidence of debt
owned BY the estate. ofadeceased per-
san unless such note. bond OF other
evidence of debt has e listed by
tle persons appointed TIC appraise bis
state We learn from the Demo
cratic author that this amendment
carries g suggestion OF practical con
tiscation for the benefit Of the debtor.
NJ the notes, bonds or other evidences:
OF debts owned by a decedent to the
exclusion OF all interests of his heirs
ssos creditors in case the appraisers
sfail to list such notes. etc, for assess
@Uent.'' This is absurd. There is no
eoufiscation Involved and a reference
10 the act amply proves it. The OBJ
isct of the new law is simply to bring
such property out for proper taxation
and nobody is going 10 be hurt by it.
The appraisers are supposed to list
these notes, bonds, etc, and it is no
- - - y.