Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1910-08-18

contention that they are relieved from
payment Of a license tax. II was 10
this section that the attorney address,
ed himself. Mt Msssle declared mat
when the measure was introduced the
title OF The act showed nothing TO TINS
city's representatives to indicate that
the revenues OF the city would be cur
tailed. Had it done so. he said, II
undoubtedly would have been defua''
cd. We declared that a general law
must specify what laws are to be re-
pealed by It and that this act does
not specify that the measure allowing
stiles TO levy license taxes on corpora
tlons was repealed by Il. lie further
declared that had It been the purpose
OF the act TO relieve the companies OF
the city license taxes. 1t was uncoh-
siltutional as the legislature has no
power 10 annul contract between
city and public service corpoI alton.
Levy Taxes on Assessment.
ATTORNEY Braxton contended that up
10 the time this act became law the
city had a perfect right to levy una
collect q license tax and that the only
onestion al issue was the construction
of the language In the new law. lie
contended that the act relates 10 BON
the state and city taxes because OF
provision in the act which sets ior'h
that the act shall not prevent cities
from levylng taxes on the property OF
tho generations as assessed by the
state Corporation Commission. The
act further provides. he pointed out
that IL the cities are not satisfied WIN
the assessment as made by the corpo'
ration commission they may appeal 10
the commission for redress and IL tue
commission refuses to reopen the as
sessment the cities may appeal to the
Supreme Court of Virginia.
Mr.. Braxton cont ended tina; II these
sections had not been put into inc
law he would have taken II that inc
act applicd only TO state taxes. out
that It seemed plain to him that 'he
inserting of these provisions about the
cities plainly meant that the Ia" was
intended TO relieve the companies oi
al, city taxes except those levied OIL
tho assessed value of the poies, wires'
mines and other personal and real prop
er,y OF the companies. The act re-
ouires the companies to make luii
report on its poles. wires, pipes, ana
real estate and other property To .he
commission so that the COMMISSION
may make the assessment The Jaw
also provides tina, the companies snaii
nav a fine Of one per cent to the state
on their gross earnings and Mr. BrSN-
ton commended that this tax was III
lieu of all other license taxes, city and
state.
Many Authorities Cited.
Both attorneys cited many authorl-
ties in support of their respective con-
tentions and argued at length on those
authorities and II vas late In the al
ternoon before the case finally was
left with the court.
Should Justice Brown decide against
the companies. the case will be appeal
ed to the Corporation Court and II
they lose ihere the companies will car
~ II to the Virginia Supreme Court.
Off,cials OF the companies say that
even il the city does not get any IL
cense tax from the companies. the
amount Of the taxes to be hereafter
paid the city by the companies VIII De
larger than that heretofore paid IN
GLIDING he license tax. They base this
statement upon the contention that the
state Corporation Commission VIII
make a much higher assessment OF
their property than the assessors have
made. The amount of the license
taxes paid by the two companies 10
sbe CITY is about $4,000 per annum.