The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-11-10
Dr.. Lyons
Tooth Powder
Used by people Of refine
ment in every part Of the
world where the use Of the
tooth brush is known, for
Almost Half a Century.

llanls opened the case Tor the state
speaking briefly on the arguments
based on the supplemental brief which
nc has prepared since his induction
1 Braxton, counsel for the company.
1 Georgia Decision.
Mr.. Braxton relied largely on cage
from Georgia, In which 1t was deeided
rendered its right to tax the property
Of the railroad affected, and took in
lieu thereof tax on the net Income.
It could no more tax franchise than
i T. could any other property; Thus tic
courts as property, to be assesncd Ike
any other property.
Calling attention to the fact that in
this case the burden was on tho Com
monwealth to show that tho Richmond.
feited It's exemption, Mr.. Braxton con.
tended that 1t had not done 30. As to
the argument that a franchise tax was
not contemplated In the exemptio On fas-
ton said that the State had allowed
seventy years to pass before contest
ing the point.
Franchise Tax New.
Making the final argument In the
case. Major Anderson SAID that 1t had
not been contemplated to exempt the
franchise tax. Az to the argument
about letting the time go by, nc called
attention to the proposition that there
was no such hing in Virginia as an
actual franchise assessment until the
coming OF the new Constitution. Q s
prior to that time the tax hail been
one on income. He said that the rail-
read Pays taxes on othsF property
court, asked what these were. Mr..
Braxton answered that they we're on
lots and buildings not used for rail-
way purposes.
q L..
New York and New Jersey were adj
verted to by Major Anderson, In which
It was held that all the property OF
the concerns affected was exempt from
taxation save the franchise. Getting
to the Wright case, the former Attor-
ney.General argued that 1t waa not
analogous as in Virginia a franchise
tax. although measured by TIE income,
Is not tax on the income or on the
ably on the distinction he drew IL this
Judge Harrison asked Him
IL all the other property Of the rail-
road was exempt except that affected
by this suit. and Major Anderson re-
as the road might acquire othsr prop
Emphatic Stntement.
In fact" he asserted with emphasis,
Il hold that no Intangible property OF |
the Richmond. Fredericksburg and Po-
tomac Is exempt"
The General Assembly. he proceeded,
had in April, 1902. passed dts law with 1
to changes in roadway. Prior
20 that time the road had right. he
admitted. to straighten its track. but
Il had no right to leave yawn.ng
,hasms" of abandoned right of way
through the territory which i: ira
yersed. Less than four weess after
he adoption of the law the company
had proceeded to do this work. affect
ng twenty-six miles of It's track. Ar.
3raxton called his attention 20 the
act that this stretch was not contin-
ious, but Major Anderson said that
3raxton said that this work was al-
eady under contract before that time, ]
tut Major Anderson said thnt there
vas no scintilla of evidence in the
ecord to show this. and that Mr.. Brax-
on was contradicted by his own
ecord.
Constitutional Provision.
Major Anderson then invoked TO his
i'd In this connection the section lob 1
{ the Constitution presented by. the
oInmittee of which my learned friend,
If. Braxton, was the head" providing
nat every corporation heretofore
hartered in this State which should q
hereafter accept OR affect any amend n
ent or extension OF its charter, should tt
e concIusively presumed to have a
hereby surrendered every exemption a
azure of its charter, and also all ex- Z.
usive rights and privileges granted ir
.eviously to 1t by the General AS II
mbly and not enjoyed by other cor II
,rations of a similar character.
Major Anderson appealed
the court to make this road GEAR the
me burdens OF taxation as those si
H., aft t,nv, ar,f =, NNf,1r1 mn.