New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-03-30
CRAVATH FOR DIRECT TAX.
Opponents Of Mortgage Impost
Haze Field Day at albany.
[BY TELEGRAPH TO THE rRrsuxE.l


Albany, March 29.-Opponents of the proposed
annual tax mortgages had their final field
day before the Assembly Committee on Taxa
ton to-day and a large share of the prominent
real estate. investing and other business IN
terests of New-York City affected by the meas
ure opposed the bill. The principal argument
opposing the measure made by Paul ID.
Cravath, representing a score of interests, IN
Guiding the Title Guarantee and Trust Company,
Douglas Robinson, Charles S. Brown & Co. the
Lawyers Mortgage Company and the United
States Realty and Construction Company. IN
the course of his speech Mr.. Cravath did not
conine himself to criticism of the pending meas
ure. but discussed at length the general subject
of taxation and the apparent limit of indirect
taxation and urged the necessity of a return
to direct taxation as an inevitable and wise
political policy
In the course of his speech Mr.. Cravath de-
clared that in opposing the measure he repre-
sented every phase of interest in mortgage loans,
the lender, the borrower, the builder. the broker
and the investor He insisted however. that
the tax would be burden not on the lender, but
on the borrower; that the burden would fall on
the particular class of borrowers already most
heavily taxed, the owners of mortgaged real
estate In New-York City, he asserted, the ag-
/ gregate debt secured by mortgage on real estate
represented at least 90 per cent Of the aggregate
! assessed valuation of real estate.
Mr. Cravath, in closing, attacked the existing
ideas of indirect taxation in the following fash
ion:
I may be going out of my province in saying
what / am about to say, but do wish to add
as Republican interested in the success of my
party and in continuing that party in charge OF
the administration of the State. that the more
we discuss the various schemes of indirect taxa
ton which have been proposed the clearer 1t
becomes
difficulty of the present situation Of the State
finances is to return to direct taxation for part
of the States income.
1t is manifest that the States legitimate re-
quirements are increasing much more rapidly
than its income. This has been the case ever
since the policy of relying upon indirect taxa
ton was inaugurated. 1t is the case to-day,
and in view of the States commitments for the
new canal and State roads, change for the
better is in prospect. Year after year additional
Indirect taxes have been devised, until every de-
feasible scheme Of indirect taxation has been
resorted TO. The odious tax is already SO large
that you fear that further increase would re-
! duce the aggregate income. The savings banks,
the insurance companies. the banks of deposit,
the trust companies, the public utility corpora
! lions of every kind, the estates OF deCedents
one after another have been subjected to such
! heavy burdens of State taxation that all agree
! that to increase them would be a hardship. In
! view of the oft heTalded declaration that new
| forms of indirect taxation must be devised to
! meet the constantly increasing expenses OF the
State, every recurring session Of the Legislature
| is viewed with alarm and apprehension by the
! conservative elements upon whom the Republi-
can party has always depended for support.
Among others speaking against the measure
! were Edward F. Brown, of the Union Les lie
| Club; John C. Coleman, of the West End AGso-
| citation; Francis E Ward, the Real Estate Board
! Of Brokers; Edward Van Ingham and r. K.
| Prentice, of the New-York Republican Club;
| Frederick c. Leubuscher, president OF the Metro
| politan League of Building and Loan Associa-
! tions; Edwin F. Howell president of the State
League of Building and Loan Associations; ia
Dish Holmes jr-, and j. NJ Wicker. of New-Yor
| City.