The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-03-02
HOUSE TO VOTE
AGAIN ON BILL
TAX COMMISSION MEASURE FAILS
OF CoNsTrTUTioNAL MA
yOHtTy.
VOTE RECONSTRUCTED
1T Is NOW PATCHWORK CREA-
TIoN-PRovIDEs FOR CON-
MISSION OF TWO FARMERS
AND ACCOUNTANT.
VOTE RECONSTRUCTED

.ortty the patchwork creation known
as the tax commission bill failed yes.
terday when placed on its final pas
saga. although a MOTION TO reconAer
tue vote DS wnicn 1t was lost pre.aued
and there VIII be anoIner vote on the
fragments.
IN the estimation OF many the
measure has been SO %araenueu and re
aln.noed That 1t ~ now 30 Iar from
beng IA cai eiuIly drawn bill that IT
should faii.
furthermore, IL creates tive new ef-
hciais instead OF one as the tormer
measure ara, and makes it obligatory
upon the .renerai Asse mbty To name
TWO asricuituraiists Tor these positions.
at salaries OF >e.ovo a year estn. WITH
other employees ana expenses PROVIDED
tor.
While there Is no doubt In the minds
OF anyone that tnere are any num-
Ter OF men engaged IN tatfnIn& ~.u,
wouia aaufn the tax commission the.
nlesa45ure is nov objected 10 As recoE~
n,zlng the farming element rather toy
nuIaeToGsly.
Furtnei more, the emasculation OF
the measure go that tn.re ID no way
to discipline a refractory oorntnisSion-
er Of revenue when he refuses or de-
Neutrality-suspicious. seeEas-ta-.s-tee
-rleN AT e~srsertept ts t,ctu by 0tTTeIs 10
be q fatal amendment
Both of these amendments were
those offered by MIR. Villains. Of Giles.
i ia.is OF constitutional Vote. &.
On its final passage in it's much
amended form the following Vas the
recorded vote:
5aRer, w. w, Bargarnin. Bell, Bow
man. Brewer. Brown, w. n, 8uTt,
s. ~ lkiltt fNftayn ~ II tNniAf1l n
D., Dreamer. baniel. Exams, Ewing,
Fitzhugh. Gillian. HARDWOOD, Houston,
jennings. jordan. Kent, Land. Love,
Meetze. Milstead. Moncure. Mortta que
Mos ley. Old, Oliver. rage, Peek,
Richardson. Row. Rutherford.
Smith. ~Stebh'ns. Stephenson. IA. u,
Terrell. Throckmorton. Tiffany, utz
Watts. White. john S, Williams. thf
Speaker -4S.
Noes-~i3oarden, Browning, Buck
Clarke, Cox. Earman, Flanagan, Full
! ton. Grant, Kemper. kinsey. Lunsford
Martin. Massie. Moore, Mustard, Park
, or, Peyton, Radfod Rakes, Rev, Rob
erts, r.. Il. Roberts, j., Rolston, Spes-
sard, Stephenson, J. w. Stlatton, SUIT
phin. Tabb. Tate. Taylor, Templeton
Walton. Weaver. Webb, White. Hugh
A, Wise. Wissler~-3s.
MI. Norris voted nc" but was no.
so recorded by inadvertence
MIR. Cox voted aye but changed
his vote merely to be able to make
= the motion to reconsider. Whether o.
not the measure can muster FIVE NOR
: votes today in orde to get a constt
= tutio1al ma lofty Is a matter of som
: doubt, especially in views of the rae
: that the Speakers dawg" has been 81
; kicked and cuTed about that 1t Is nov
!" not much thought Of ay anyone.
The closing debate on the measur
t YESTERDAY us not without features o
interest.
MIR. Lunsford Scores
{ When the tax commission bin wa
reached at / O'Clock MIR. Lunsfof
, resume the argument on II. he hay
II Ing had the floor when the Hous
last considered the measure on In
previous evening.
= He declared tina commissioners
the evenue were better prepared I
know the values in their ~respectif
communities than the members or an
commission. He denied that the CON
missioners of the revenue or the star
were either dishonest, inefficient {
u%nfaithfui as q rule, although no on
had made the sweeping charge. II
said that those officials were electe
hy the, same people who chose. III
members of the General Assembly, an
he expressed the belief that not a
the responsibility. honesty and Ell
cheney left the counties when the mem
bers of the Legislature came to Rief
mond. He declared that no hetse
way had been devised by which I
assess property than the n now /
vogue by which the assessors examin
ed each piece of property.
Mr.. Throckmorton referred Nj
Luusford to the case of one count
in the State, where the figures IA
J shown by 149 transfers disclosed tn
fact that the assessed values OF In
> properties ansferred were but thfr
u teen per cent. OF the values disclose
In the deeds. MI. Throckmo~ton IN
ssaira i. Mhethhr 4fsr not 19oss.. counts
In which the lane was assessed ut q
= per cent. of Its value were not payin
I Ave times AS much taxes as this coun
= ty, where the assessment seemed I
s lie on IA IL per cent. basis.
Might Have Been n Boom.
r Mr.. Lunsford parried the thrust b
. saying that there might have been
boom In that particular county, an
that real estate was frequently sol
for more than Its value. He declared
too. that II Was the valuable iant
the best property. that found SALE
whereas there were thousands OF acre
of land which were NOT desirable an
s found no sale.
Mr.. Lunsford argued further tina
the proposed bill vas not workable Il
thai 1t contemplated that the tax com
mission should refer to the commits
sioners' books for facts and figure
on which TO base the State rate, AM
that, as a matter OF fact. the law re
quired the commissioners TO extend tn
figures on the books, making |
necessary for him TO know the rat
before he made the figures,
:. MIR. Lunsford close the argurlen
by paying attribute to the ability. pa
triotism and distinguished public ser
vices of the speaker of the House. tn
patron OF the bin. but declared tina
In the measure before the House M
one had the right TO follow persona
preference and he hoped 1t would b.
defeated.
Mr.. Stephenson, of Bath. denounces
the measure as creating most cost,
machinery for he Capitalization o
power.
C~halkley's Thouehtful Speech.
Mr.. Chalkiey. Of Wise. declared tina
there seemed TO be an entire Iniscon
eeption Of the purpose of the bill. HI
made 4 thoughtful talk in Its adpo
cacy. declaring that. while It nigh
cost him prestige In his own country
and he understood that he was thu
only man from the Southwest wht
favored the measure. he was for Il
because he believed II to be right. JUS