The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-02-23
TAX SETTLEMENT
STILL IN BALANCE
r., F. & P. Compromise Will Be
Tested i'll Courts Before
End Is Reached.
STOCKHOLDERS TO MEET
NJ. lJ;:1I: 80. ~ =
STOCKHOLDERS TO MEET
Not Willing to Give Up I.xenip-l
ton Unless Law Is
Constitutional.

as stated In Tho Times Dispatch or
February s. 1t is not expected that tho
contract for settlement of the States
tax claims against the Richmond. Fred
ericksburS and Potomac Railroad will
be ratified by tho stockholders when
they meet In adjourned session in this
city on Tuesday. They first desire as
pointed out In the issue referred 10. &
that the constitutionality of the act
permitting II compromise OF the claim
be tested in tho courts. and prepare
tions are being made TO have this DONE
The stockholders met February 8. A.
resolution was passed by an over-
whelming majority. ratifyinx the
agreement consummatcd between the
board of directors OF the road and tho
special commission representing theS
State, whereby the Richmond. Freder-
icksburg and POTOMAC agreed to nav
hVe years arrears of taxes franchise
and property, state and local. 1t fur.
their agreed TO surrender it's exemptions
from taxation and to secure suctr.
amendments to its charter as Will place
1T on a par with all other railroads
of the State. giving up its special PRIV
icial burdens.
Doubt of ConstitutionaIity.
But there was a minority, although n
very small one. The presence of
negative vote Indicated protesting
stockholder, who might make trouble
before Il contamination could be reach-8
ed. 1t doubtless arose from the letter
written to Governor Mann by AUDITOR
e. Lee Moore. who took the position
that the act empowering the special
commission to effect settlement was
In violation OF the Constitution. which
prohibits the acceptance of any sum
duo the State less than the amount
owed.
! Later, the Auditor agreed TO abide
by the decision OF the Attorney -Gen1
cral. and to accept the money ii that
official said the act was CONSTITUTIONAL
! But, as n matter of fact, the two
| propositions agreed To are not interS
dependent. The courts might say the
compromise was unconstitutional but
i this would not affect tho contract to
give up the tax exemption So. in tho
event the agreement were contested and
| thrown out the stockholders would
still be bound to secure an amend4
ment to the charter of the road and
! to give up their exemption. In returTs
/ they would gain nothing, since in that
Court of the United States would be-
event TIC suit NOW III the supreme
pushed to conclusion. 81
Would Yield Point for Nothing.
Naturally. therefore. the stockhoid-iy
ers do not desire to be separated from
their special privileges under an agrees
ment abating part ofthe taxes claimed.
when. in fact. that part of the agree
ment might fall in the courts and tho
whole amount be later claimed. a#
In addition, there is some disagree@
ment between the parties as TO inter-
est to be paid so that the contract is
not ready for the stockholders in any,
event. However. this could be adjust-
ed but for the determination. as ex4
clusively announced in The Times. Dis \
patch on February s. to test the propoJ
sition legally. AZ
| During the conferences held by tho
commission. Attorney General WIZ 4
| liams has expressed serious doubts as 4
to the constitutionality OF the compr0
mise. and this. naturally, adds to the
! uncertainty of the situation. However.s
tho Ave members of the special CONS
mission, all lawyers, believe that fhe
act Is entirely in accord with the oES 4
| ganio Law. and that it viii nc sustained
as result OF the friendly suit to ~ (
brought.