The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-03-05


could get loans on their tobacco crops
aad when such crops were ready for
the market they could and frequently
did take their crops to other ware
houses than that from which they had
negotiated loans. sell the crop, pocket
the money, and then fail to repay the
warehouseman from wnom the loans
had been procured. DR.. Kent. of Hall
fax. supported the measure Mr.
Adams. OF Charlotte. opposed the bill
IS making the criminal Law another
vehicle for the collection of debt, and
declaring that If such protection were
to be given the warehouseynan then
the merchant and fertilizer man should
on the same principle be included in
the provisions of the measure.
Mr. Martin wanted to know what
would become OF the farmer whose
crop failed or was destroyed.
hr. Love also attacked the bill.
but 1t passed the House by a vote
OF 80 to 90. Notwithstanding the fact
| that IN the opinion OF the lawyers Of
the House there Is ample law now on
| the statute books to punish cases
where actual frauds are pcrpetrated
! either in such cases as the one set
| out in this bin or in similar In
stances.
| Dear Treasurers at Home.
! The HOUSE for the second time this
| session showed it's extreme consider
| alton of the county treasurers back
home by voting down Senate bill 2s6,
! the provisions of which as adopted
| in the upper branch We're to require
! each treasurer to make report of
| the conditions of his office every time
the State Corporation Commission
should call for statements from the
| banks, which occurs FIVE times a year.
This statement was to be published
in some newspaper. The bill was first
dismissed with rush by the friends
of the treasurers on the floor OF the
House. Mr.. Cox, of Richmond. moved
a reconsideration OF the measure He
thought that 1t was a matter of right
that the people should be kept add
! vised as to the manner In which
their business was being conducted
He declared that the bill would work
no hardship upon the treasurers. and
to the contrary. would prevent lax
business methods such as finally
brought great embarrassment to hon.
est. we l-intentioned officials.
Mr.. Gillian, Of Petersburg, made
strong speech in advocacy OF the
bill. declaring that there was no goot
reason why public depositor,
7
when those who collected and han
died public funds were not so safe.
guarded
Mr.. Oliver spoke in opposition tc
the measure, declaring that It placed
/ a burden upon the county treasurer
that would prove very costly TO them
probably requiring the employment
J Of additional force.
, A Good and Necessary Bill.
Mr.. Bell. of Chlpeper. declared tina
the measure was not only good one
| but very necessary. 1t was In lint
with the recommendation of the re
firing Auditor. Captain Donohoe. VIII
had declared for monthly settlement
, at the hands of the treasurers. III
thought that every treasurer shoui'
, be able at the close of each day Il
: be able to tell with little difficult!
how he stood. He offered an amend
ment making the failure for a treas
urer to make such report punisha BIZ
by fine of not less than 500 o
! more than $100.
Mr. Baker, OF Chesterfield. deciar
ed the bill one OF the wisest and mos
judicious measures introduced durint
the session. He thought IL In tn
: Interest OF the treasurers themseiVe
to have such system OF report
inaugurated. He told of condition.
lin his own county. where treas
urcr. man Of means. on account o
/, a lax system Of bookkeeping. haa
without intending so to do, failed
TO account for a sum estimated t
be In excess OF $4,000. covering ;
: period of years. although able to pa,
that sum ten times over and willing
ito do so.
Another Attempt ~ Spying"
! Mr.. williams of Giles. declared
. that ii was the. same old proposition
which had been coming up at every
: session for the past twenty years, ant
was another case Of trying to hav'
someone Spying around the treas
. urers' offices all the time. He deciar
|, ed that II would be im~ossible fo
,, the treasurers to comply with sucl
, a law. He declared that with ~
ltreasurers the State had not lost {
dollar in many years. After the prev
ious question had been called. Mr.
White tried to get In an amendment
to the bill requiring the treasurer
to remit to the auditor as often al
the reporta were made. but he wa
ruled out of order. BY n vote of s
to IS the House defeated the measure
A few days ago the House defeated
tho bill requiring monthly remit
tances from county treasurers ant
clerks. a measure the Importance ant
necessity of which had been 81
strongly urged by the auditor In hi
annual report.
License Tax on Corporations.
, The next measure that caused ois
cussion was the Holt Milstcad bill
authorizing cities to impos- licens,
taxes upon water. heat. light anC
power companies. This license wa.
taken on by the Assembly two year
ago, depriving the cities which dit
. not hav franchise contracts with sucf
corporations of considerable revenue
The measure rassed with an amend
trent from the Finance Committed
limiting the amount Of the tax Il
one-haK Of per cent of the gross
! earnings OF the compa MES.
Adopts RcdIstricting Bill.
The House having been informec
lof the Senate action upon the con.
gressional redlstricting measure tool
up and speedil disposed OF II b,
voting IS to 10 to concur with this
senate amendments which makes nc
changes in the existing district lines
save to add to the Fifth district the
Democratic counties OF Halifax ane
Charlotte now In the Sixth district
thereby making the Fifth district Ger.
tainly Democratic.
! Mr. Etabbins. Of Halifax. who had
led the night against the first redis.
tricttng report made by the House
COMMITTEE on Privileges and Flee.
ftions. which took Halifax out Of ths
sixth and nlaced In the Sixth the
a Ayf.<x Atatpfnt x.n.snttA~ ~