The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1906-09-29
CITY COUNCIL EXACTS
NEW TAX FOR INSURANCE

to blame for a deficit and should not
be made to pay for this deficit. If any
body Is to blame 1t is in the operation
of the city government. tell you we
are going the wrong way. We know
where the leakage Is that Montgom-
cry doesn't get what 1t is entitled to-.
We know what tax values are given
for here. believe in calling a spade
a spade"
Alderman Lobman said that the tax
or accident Insurance companies here
tofore was $40 and. as business prop
osition, the finance committee found
that the city government is run at less
than cost. The city government was
being run as economically as 1t could
be and there was only one thing tn
do, increase the licenses. Regarding
the two percent tax, he said "a noun
tain was being made out of mole
hole" he thought the license very
reasonable.
Alderman j. C. Tyson agreed with
Alderman Strauss. He said he thought
II a curse for a report to get out that
Montgomery is an expensive place II
live In He deemed a twenty-five per
cent increase unjust and he was OPP
posed to 1t.
The question at issue, Alderman
Gunter said he regarded as serious. He
took the position that the aldermen
represent the people and should NOT
array themselves against anybody. He
said the aldermen were not trying 70
work a hardship on anyone They were
irving to establish n rate for raising
money, commensurate with rates
charged in other cities The state, ne
said, has decided that an income tax
is proper as a method for raising
revenue for county or city
insurance Men Willing.
On the appearance of the insurance
men before the finance committee. RI
said that 1t had been agreed to chang'
the percentage tax from gross ousi,
ness to new business. He counldn''
see why the alderman from ward two
or the alderman at large should Cd
feet IL the insurance men didn't
In the stand he had taken. Alderman
Strauss said he was conserving th'
city's interests. He was unalteraoiy OPP
posed to per centage taxation. He pre-
dtcted such tax would lead to UNTOLD
trouble.
"If YOU think the business justifies
that these People ought to pay $780,
said the aIderman& land other taxes
are raised proportionately, then an
in favor of such license.
Despite the opposition of Aldermef
Strauss and Tyson, the clause or th'
ordinance relating to accident insur
ance was ultimately adopted PLACING
the two per cent tax only on new
business. Both Aldermen Strauss an'
Tvson desired to be recorded as vot
ing against It.
4 clause was then adopted placing tn
same license and percentage tax OF
companies doing casualty. indemnlt'
and surety business.
The next question that appeared wa
the licensing of aid associations ex
elusive of fraternal orders. Under Tn
ordinance, the license was placed
$3.50 per annum.
Aldermen Strauss and J. C. Tysoi
again thought this license exorpitdn
to be increased from $40 to $3.50, AM
when the item was adopted they wer
recorded in the negative.
Fire Insurance.
The clause of the ordinance impos
ing a license of 5000 on fire insuranc
companies and per cent. of their gros
business, was then taken up.
Alderman Strauss computed to tn
Council that such method would meal
loss of about $4,000 year to tn
city. He said the total amount o
premiums paid in Montgomery annual
was approximately $350,000, of whic
| $4,000 was country business. On tn
| percentage basis, the fire insuranc
companies would prohibit the writin
of country business from here. TIL
| country agents would be eliminate
and Montgomery might lose as niue
as $4,000 licenses from these agents
He moved that this clause be remove
| from the ordinance and that the liccns
be made $500 fiat. identical with tn
past year Alderman Lobman second
ed the motion.
Alderman Gunter contended that tn
percentage tax would be an incentiv
| for other smaller fire insurance com
panies to do business in Montgomer
and thew probably wouldn't be member
of the Southeastern Tariff Association
| He arra.gned the association for an al
legged failure to stand to Its agree
ment with the city He said he woul
be willing to make the license $25
| and the 2 per cent. tax so that. &C
co1ding to the argument of the Al
dermen t-large, Montgomery would no
be hurt by the method of taxation.
Promises are worthless.
Alderman Lobman was emphatic J.
saving that any promise from fir
insurance company wasn't worth
"snap." because every time there wa
a san Francisco or a Baltimore hrt
| the rates were raised and the propert
owners had to pay for It, For thi
reason. in committee he ha1 not bee
| in favor of increasing the license.
it would simply mean an additions
drain on the property owner. He ia
vored the license at $500 and for tina
reason seconded the Strauss motion.
Montgomery, he said, Is unfortunat
in having a fine fire department. II
thought the department should be cen
sured for not allowing some OF tn
"rotten" buildings to burn to tn
ground.
The Strauss motion was unanimousl,
adopted and the fire insurance licens
was placed fatty at $500.
The clause. placing a license of $40
on life insurance companies, 10 per cent
of new business, and $3.50 for each so
licitor or agent, was considered. Mr.
Lobman said the life Insurance compa
niles had agreed to this clause. 1t wai
adopted, Alderman Strauss voting nay
No trouble was encountered until thu
license on bucket shops" was reached
This clause imposed a license of $4Ol
on such business. allowing the priv
le9e of seni-annual license.
Alderman Strauss moved that the Ii
cense be made 5000 per annum.
Alderman Gunter thought $500 wal
legitimate.
motion foT 5000
The Strauss amendment was lost. Al
dermen Strauss and Tyson only vot
ing nay, and the original clause of thu
measure was then adopted.
For Money Lenders.
There was no other clash between
the Aldermen until they reached thu
consideration of the license of $3.50 OF
money lenders as reported in the or
dinance.
In answering an inquiry Alderman