The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-01-20
Weaver Bill Segregates
This Property for Use
of State Alone.
STUART STANDS
FOR HIGHER RATE
Governor-Elect Supports Jordan
Substitute Making 1t Is Cents,
While Governor Mann Stands
for Less Amount-Both
Appear and Take OPP
posite Views.

BY n vote OF 8 to 6. the House
Finance Committee last night rejected
the Jordan substitute bill for tax on
money in bank. supported by Governor-
Elect Henry c. Stuart and recon-
mended the Weaver bill, seSregating
this subject OF taxation to the State
alone and fixing the State rate at 10
cents on Sl00, as recommended by
Governor Mann. The contest over this
form OF taxation has become the sub
ject of n bitter controversy before the
General Assembly, and the fight Will
be renewed on the floor Of the House
For several hours yesterday bankers
from all sections of the State present
ed to the committee the urgency of the
situation, claiming that unless cmer-
gency steps were taken, millions oc
dollars would be Withdrawn from Vir-
ginia banks before February THE
annual taxing day.
Hcachcd After Ions. Debate.
While the banks have prepared
| themselves to meet the strain, they
have done so by calling in loans, and,
| TO large extent putting a check on
business. The decision to report the
! weaver bill at 10 cents. instead of .
cents. as introduced. was reached az
ter three-hour executive session, in
which every member took part in the
debate. Tho vote was not announced,
but was said to have been as follows:
For the Jordan substitute. favored by
MIR. Stuart: Messrs. Jordan, Spessard,
Stearnes. Pitts, Terrell and Gregory.
For the Weaver bill as amended:
Messrs Weaver. Brewer. Houston.
Montague. spatiE. owen. Grasty and
oliver
! Absent. Mr.. Baker
/ MIR. Stuart's Statement
Gorernor-lslect stuart issued the ~
! lowing statement after the yote
In the committee last night:
The substitute bill as proposed by
members of the finance committee
! carrying tax rate of 90 cents on tho
SlO0 OF bank deposits, represents my
attitude on this question. regard this
rate as very low, and it is 10 cents
lower than the amount originally pro-
posed by the bankers themselves. Tho
substitute bill also provides the means
! for the practical collection OF this low
tax, and this is perhaps the only JUS
tihcation for making the rate as low
as the bill proposes
The bill as reported by the COM
mittec carrying II rate of 0 cents on
! the 800 presents the same difficulties
| In collection as those that now exist
| out OF S2O0.000.000 of bank deposits
In Virginia only about sl4, 900, 900 was
| reported for taxation last year and it
. Is estimated that one-half OF this
orphans whose estates were in the
! hands or fduciares and exposed to
! taxation. so that the amount volun-
tarily reported was about $1,000 900.
Failure on the part of the majority
or the Finance Committee to accept.
tho low proposed rate of $3.50 on the
! $1,000, or one-seventh of the present
average rate seems to raise a ques
ton as to what share of the burdens
| or taxation the opponents OF the sub
| stituto bill are willing to bear The
rate of 81 on $1,000 as proposed in the
| bill reported Is only one sixteenth OF
| the present average tax.
what 1t In Yielding.
On this basis II would seem that
less than one twenty eighth Of the tax
able value in tho form OF bank de-
posits to say nothing of moneys held
| outside of banks. We're voluntarily re
ported for taxation last year so that
on that basis and assuming that $780,
! 100000 represents all the taxable
money in the State, this subject of tax
! alton Is yielding about onc-t twenty
1. eighth OF what is now duo from It
by law.
Further. assuming that real estate
/ and visible personal property is as
! sessed in the State on an average of
I third OF its fair or market value,
and considering that all of this class
/ of property is reached and assessed at
\ 'litl average assessment al n tHN ratio
I averaging for all purposes SLIGO per
Si00, it is clear that tho rate proposed
lin tho substitute bill, namely. 2J cents
/ on the Sl0O. is about one half the pro
/ portional burden nv~ 1sst,ng real
! estate and visible personal property
! at this low assessment. Under the
rate reported by the committee, 10
| cents on the 500, the burden would bo
! about one-tifth OF that of the proper
4 tional burden now resting real ea-
tate and visible personal property. My
/ understanding has been that the bulk
/ of the complaint against the present
! system has been against the practice oc
! underassessment OF real estate and vis-
| ible property. If the bin as reported Ia
! enacted into law, and is taken as rep
/ resenting the view Of tax reformers,
! tho conclusion is irresistible that ex
! empt!on rather than equalization is
| what is really desired"
J Mann and stuart Appear.
The all-day hearing was unique in
/ that a Governor and Governor elect
/ broke all precedents I'm appearing be-
/ fore a Legislative committee From tho
| views expressed by members OF the
/ General Assembly last night, 1t is evil
! dent that there Is sharp division.
! Chairman Weaver was doubtful wheih-
| tered to make the bill emergency
measure. and the friends of the substl-
tute were confident that they could
! force their point on the floor OF the
House. Mr.. Weaver expressed the view
| that the passage OF the bill even With
| out an emergency clause would res
assure depositors and serve to check
| tho predicted Withdrawals. Aireadyiga
! number OF House leaders have. lined
/ UP with Mr., Stuart OH the propositton
| that the Legislature elected on thu
1 question OF equalizing tho burden OF Z
4 o ,yn i. s -