The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1905-03-17
HEARING
ON THE new
TAX BILLS

on finance gave a public hearing on GER
tain acts which propose tax on certain
semi-public corporations. The act pro-
viding for a tax on street railway cor
rorations was hrst 10 he considered.
There was no one who appeared TO care
TO speak In favor OF the act and the
first speaker was T. T. I. Mcdonald who
said he appeared as the representative
OF the Sea View railroad. He, however
asked that the act be laid over for
time
The committee then said the act re-
lating 10 collateral inheritances would be
taken up and no one appeared either for
or against a..
The committee then took up an act In
relation 10 taxation OF railroad corpora
tions n W. Smith, attorney for the
New York. New Haven and Hartford
railroad said that unless some one cared
10 speak IN favor OF the act he did not
az first care to oppose It. He. however
reconsidered this position. and proceeded
TO oppose the act He said his opposl-
tion was on the ground that any act
which proposed 10 tax railroads and not
all other corporations was unfair. He
realised that there was a feeling that
railroads should he singled out, still on
the whole he believed this was unfair.
He entered into q general discussion
OF the principle of taxation, stating wha {
were the rights and privileges OF railroad
corporations as compared with those Of
other corporations OF the state. and he de-
clared that so far as he could learn the
railroads had no different rights except
the right OF eminent domain and when
this was exercised the corporation paid
for H. He said that at the present time
the roads he represented now paid y tax
OF more than sell 900 and the passage Of
this act would more than double the
tax
He said that the railroads he repre-
sented would not object 10 law which
applied to all corporations, but he OBJ
iected 10 n special net Of this kind.
stephen O. Edwards OF Providence said
he represented several corporations inter
ested IN the matter He thought tho act
would be pretty harsh for n non -operat-
ing company and he believed that an In
come tax OF this kind was rather ques-
tionable Legislation He had the same
opposition 10 the other acts. decsrin &
that the idea Of taxing corporations IN this
way was rather soeialistic In It's ten
deucy.
lie realized that the state needed money
but he believed this was n poor system
OF raising money.
The act providing for a tax on tele-
phone. telegraph, sas. express and water
companies was next taken up but while
there were numerous attorneys present
no one appeared to care 10 speak AZ FIRST.
Theodore r. Greene finally said he repre-
sented a local express company and that
there appeared 20 ne no reason why the
express companies should he called upon
10 pay a special tax Of this character.
Prof Gardner Of Brown university sad
that when he heard OF these acts it ap-
peared 60 him tho 70 was n move In the
right direction lie believed it was a
good time 10 separate the state claims
from the towns ard cities and II such a
plan should he adopted IL woIld mean that
the state should proceed TO Ind new
sources ~ revenue He declared that In
New Yors and n good many other states
this method OF taxing public franchise
corporations had been adopted and had
brought good results. He favored a coll
lateral inheritance tax act, believing that
10 would produce good results here as ~
had in some 80 other states of the Uni~h.
Frank W Tilinghast spoke ss repre-
sentlng the street railway corpora tions.
saying that he realized that more revenue
must be had by the state and he believed
that thsre was q blu before the house at
the present time which would cover the
whole subject better than any act now
before the committee except perhaps the
act relating to n collateral Inheritance.
Ife thought thatt here would be no tax
more easily raised or one that would
have go little opposition az one which
provided for this kind of tax