The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1906-02-20
Messrs. CudIipp, Cruise and
Heck Advance Strong Ar
guments in Favor Of the
Calvin Bill
JERSEY CITY'S GAIN
COUNSELLOR cUDLIPP SAYS
CHARLES G. BLACK FAvoRs
THE CALVIN MEASURE AS THE
SIMPLEST METHOD OF PRO-
yIDING FOR TAXATION
Special to ..The Jersey city News.'o.


TRENTON Feb. 20, 19G6-The Judi
ciary Committee of the House gave a
hearing yesterday afternoon on Assem-
blyman Galvins franchise tax bill in
creasing the tax under the Voorhees, act
from two to fveper cent. upon the gross
receipts of all public utility franchises
and other corporations as reported to the
State Board of Assessors.
Chairman Perkins and Assemblymen
Martin and Barber were the only mem
bers of the committee present. 1t was ex-
pected that Prosecutor William H. Speer
would present the strongest arguments
for the Calvin bill, but Assemblyman
Calvin stated that he was unable TO at
tend owing to a pressure of business
which detained him in Jersey City.
Messrs. William c. Cudhpp, John w.
Heck and Howard B. Cruise spoke in IA
ver~of the Calvin bill.
Counsellor Cudlipp acknowledged that
he drafted the bill and caused it's intro
duction He said that when the Voorhees,
act was introduced demanding tax OF
two per cent. on public utility franchises
it was never intended that it should stand
as the taxation limit. 1t was merely an
experimental figure Now that the troll
ley cars have supplanted the horse cars,
it became necessary to increase the tax
from two to FIVE per cent. owing to the
increased gross earnings.
Mr.. Cudlipp then delved into an argu-
ment as to why the increased tax should
be levied. He said that Jersey City did
not desire municipal ownership Of public
utilities and for that reason rather favor
ed a tax on the franchises. Although the
Jersey City Board of Trade approved the
Calvin bill, it did not know that the Mar
tin. bill was to be introduced. He con-
tended that the Calvin bill was simpler
than the Martin measure, and therefore
should be reported. There could be alb
solutely no dispute he claimed, under the
Calvin bin to question the amount the
corporations had to pay in taxes, be-
cause the tax would be levied upon the
amount of the gross receipts. He esclaim-
ed that tax on the gross receipts of cor
porations was the ideal form Of taxation
upon which no criticism could be passed.
Mr.. Cudlipp explained that he had
been authorized by Mr.. Charles G. Black,
the late Democratic Gubernatorial cam
didate, to state that he favored the Gal
vim bills method of taxing franchises. He
said that Mr.. Black was an authority on
taxation and his views should be serious
" considered.
In reply to Mr. Martins questions,
Mr.. Cudlipp said that he would not state
that the Martin bill was unconstitutional.
He merely considered the Calvin bill
simpler method Of providing for taxation.
Under the Martin bill the tax was fixed
at. a cestain sum, while under the Gall
vim bill it could be Increased as the franz
chise value increased from 10 TO 2G per
cent. yearly.
Mr.. Martin claimed that under his bill
Jersey City would derive more revenue
than under the present Calvin bill. Mr..
Cudlipp admitted that he thought chat
Mr.. Martin was correct in his views, but
that the Martin bill would put a rather
stiff burden on the corporations, consid-
ering the heavy tax they were compelled
TO pay on their realty and personal prop
erty. Mr.. Cudlipp also acknowledged
that he had not carefully considered tbs
provisions Of the Martin BILL
Counsellor John w. Heck. represent
ing the Jersey City Board of Trade,
stated that he endorsed Mr.. Cudlipp's ar
gument. HI. spoke of the sale Of the
Jersey City and Bergen Street Railway
Company for $4,000, COO, and under such
value. he believed. that the company
should pay q. proper tax on the franchise
according to its value. He did not have