The San Francisco call., 1906-05-18

After QeDate on SecllOn dIler SeS-
tion of the collateral inheritance tax
act as it is proposed for amendment
by the Joint committee on call for
special session of the Legislature the
members of the committee hnally
adopted for presentation to the Legis-
lature the proposed act raising the per-
centages of taxation on estates
The new act will leave the taxation
on the estates left to widows and chill
dren of the deceased the same as 1t
is now. and will not change the figures
of exemption of such estates from
taxation. The amendments originally
contemplated the doubling of the taxa
ton on each of these matters, but the
objections of w. ]. Herrin and Garret
McEnerney overruled the recommend
ations of State Attorney General U. 5.
Webb. The other recommendations in
regard to the amending of the collat-
eral inheritance tax were adopted by
of McEnerney. who held out for no
change of the existing act.
The view taken by the committee
was that the moral duty Of a husband
or father to support widow or children
should not be cause for taxation. but
that small increase of taxation
should be made on estates going to
brother or sister, uncle, aunt or
nephew A ten per cent increase was
proposed on estates left to distant
relatives or friends residing without
the boundaries of California.
In objecting McEnerney declared
that the higher tax rate made the
cost of dying excessive, and that peo-
pie would choose other States in which
to meet their finish with less expense.
He argued against the increase Of the
collateral inheritance tax, but was
opposed by the rest of the commit
tee present with the statement that
the tax was the least felt, caused least
friction, and that 1t was urgently
needed to provide the State with
funds.
Mr. McEnerney then moved that the
moneys realized from the increased in
heritance tax be applied to the funds
of the county in which the deceased
resided. He maintained that San
Francisco, with her large fortunes,
would provide over one-half the reve
nue. so derived. but would draw only
quarter Of the State appropria-
ton This was opposed by the COM
mittee with the statement that San
Francisco's wealth in large fortunes
the motion was lost. The act as sub
sequently amended was re-referred to
a committee for redrafting.
TAX ON CORPORATIONS.
Regarding the tax on corporations.
which Attorney General Webb sug
gested should be amended so that the
tax for doing business should be in
creased from SO to $50 and on de-
Gnquent corporations from SIS to s25,
the committee made two changes. The
tax for doing business was placed at
$40 and the tax for delinquency at
$40. An amendment to the corporation
act was proposed. giving directors and
stockholders of defunct corporations
the power Of disposing of property Of
the forfeited corporations. The entire
plan Of legislation was then referred
to a subcommittee for redrafting of
the entire act.
Senator Ed l. Wolfe appeared before
the committee as chairman Of the
joint delegation OF San Francisco AS
semblymen and Senators to offer as
sistance to the joint comittee in the
preparation of legislation. He said
that 1t was the desire OF both branches
of the Legislature to make the special
session as short. expeditions and In
expensive as possible. He added, fur
ther. that the representatives from
other sections of the State were In
clined to leave the matter pertaining
to the needs Of San Francisco In the
hands Of the San Francisco delega-
ton, and that the delegation would
request to be taken into the confidence
of the committee in its preparation
Of legislative matters.
Senator Wolfe was informed that be-
fore the joint committee finished It's
labors 1t would like to have commit
tee from the delegation, or the delega-
tion entire, come into conference with
1t on the proposed legislation With
this idea Senator Wolfe withdrew and
will later call meeting Of the legis-
lative delegation to ascertain If the en-
tire delegation wishes to appear before
the joint committee or send a commit
tee to represent the delegation.
ASK LEGISLATION.
After a conference with City Attor-
ney Burke Justice Van Nostrand ap-
peared before the committee on behalf
OF the justices courts to request spe-
cfal changes In legislative enactments.
He filed with the committee the follow
ing statement from the Justices:
We understand that your commit
tee has under consideration certain
amendments to the laws which it is in
tended shall meet the difficulties aris-
ing from the recent calamity While we
are not advised of the particular
changes your committee contemplates
recommending we believe that the rea-
sons making such changes necessary
operate with equal IL not greater pro-
priety to the Justices courts. Very
generally we would request that your
committee bear this in mind and espe-
cially provide in eacn instance wher
ever change is made that the same
shall apply to the Justices courts in
so Tar as the peculiar nature and or
ganization Of the Justices courts will
permit.
In addition to this, we beg to call
your attention to the fact that under
the law as it now exists in reference
to Justices courts there is no power
granted Justices by which execution
may be stayed except by process of
appeal Justices courts are courts of
speedy relief, and in the ordinary
course of<events the time ensuing be-
tween the commencement of an action
and judgment Is very short. We would.
therefore, suggest that the Justices be
granted power to stay execution in