The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1914-04-20

this paper has felt compelled 10
make Of certain OF Governor Flet-
eher's Official acts, The Bennington
Banner. edited By Lieut.. Gov. Prank
=. Howe. who Is also a member OF
the state board OF appeals. goes into
a somewhat interesting phase OF the
political life OF His Sxcellency. The
contemporary points out that when
Mr. Fletcher was on the stump seek
ing election. he took the ground
that n he was governor he would
Try TO see that the big public service
corporations were served no better
than individuals. and The Banner
finds that the governor has done just
as he promised he would because.
for the first time in generation.
Vermont has a governor who Is In
sisting that the corporations bear
the same share OF the tax burden as
other folks and get no special fay-
or" The banner states that for the
past sixty years the railroads have
either paid no tax Al all or have paid
less than half OF What individuals
have paid and the tax history OF
other big public service corporations
is about the same up 10 the past two
years They hate TO meet their bur
dcns as the rank and file OF the peo-
pie meet them" The Banner fnds
the cause OF the opposition 10 Cover
nor Fletcher in the fact that he is
compelling the biz corporations 10
pay more taxes. Naturally, very ma
;rally The Montpelier Journal
agrees fully with The Banner and
goes ON 20 say. The campaign OF
Misrepresentation and abuse waged
against the executive is based upon
the fact that he has courageously re-
deemed his pledge to secure equal
justice for the people against the big
corporations. which. until he assum
ed the gubernatorial chair. had es-
capped a large share OF the tax bur
dens that properly belonged to
them"
These statements having been
made by Governor Fletcher's jealous
defenders. Il is proper TO examine
into them and to see to just what
logical conclusions they will lead
The Banner refers to the railroad
taxation matter Good II will be
remembered that an appeal was TAX
en- from the valuation OF the railroad
properties as made by the state com
missioner OF taxes because the state
did not consider the figures high
enough. This appeal surely was in
line with Governor Fletcher's cam
paign promises are set forth by The
Banner. At that time opposition to
an increase Of taxation was based on
economic grounds. but the taxes
were increased although not up to
the figures the state asked for.
Next comes the telephone apprai-
sal. A valuation was made accord
ing to law by the tax commissioner
for the purposes OF taxation. Again
an appeal was taken. as in the rail-
road case. Now, then. arguing on
the basis OF the defense put up for
the governor by the two contempor-
aries. namely that the executive be.
lieved that the public service corpor-
atoms have not been paying taxes
enough in the past, it seems rea-
son able and Just inference that the
appeal was taken to increase the
telephone taxes. This would be in
line with the governors speeches
and in line with his action as re-
CARDS the railroads
But a disturbing element now en-.
tiers in which upsets logical deduc.
tons. The public service commits
sion, having made an appraisal OF
the valuation OF the telephone prop
critics upon which IL fel. justified in
ordering a reduction of rates, it ap-
peared that the appraisal was be-
low that which the tax commissioner
had made and from which an appeal
had been taken by the state presum.
ably, and fairly so. on the ground
that il was not high enough and was
letting the companies off too easily.
as the governor had said the big cor
porations had been let off in the past
to the injustice of the general tax
paying public. The public service
commissions appraisal was also be-
low the valuation TO which the com
panies confessed and on which they
were willing to pay their taxes. The
difference amounted to several hun.
dred thousands of dollars.
The governor. apparently. was AT
once placed in a most peculiar posi-.
ton by these developments. On the
one hand he had declared, according
to his present defenders, that the
companies had not been carving
their just share of the tax burden.
On the other hand he had expressed
the belief that the rates charged BY
the telephone companies were ex-
cessive. But, if the valuation as Sc,
forth by either the companies them
selves or hV the state tax co,,,n,;,