Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1915-05-12

4 ON INSURANCE 9gkR p63zA49Ef WaS WEpn8
and the companies had sheen discr4na-
| mated against, fer the taxation rec
autred should be raised on & more gem
| erai aBseesmhnt. This 81 O. double tax.
The present tax of one per cent. per
| share, which represents a share In the
| event Of dissolution. The taxpayers
are the stockholders OF the property
insured and 10th are to be taxed IL the
bill prevails. Ali other corporations
are not required to pay q double tax.
If corporation 10 taxed that same
property should not also be taxed upon
the securities. Why select insurance
companies from zone classification. and
tax that and notsthe, other corporations
in the same class, which Mr.. Hewes
said was plain act Of discrimination.
II this state does jack up the insur-
ance tax Ave per cent, It will be I'M
just and unfair and the action is not
creditable to the Legislators. for the in
surance taxation Is now greater than
| in any other state in the union. He
asked for the consideration Of the mat
ter from purely fair standpoint
Mr.. Brooks of Torrington said he
was willing to accept reduced dividend
insurance checks to save the state
from bankruptcy and hoped every
amendment presented would be killed
and that the bill would go through as
planned by the committee.
State Needa Money.
Mr.. IsbelI said the state needed the
money and that the finance committee
had given the whole matter careful
consideration and that insurance COM
panies were treated fairly, and there
was no desire to drive insurance COM
panies out of the state. These COM
panies are doing a big business and
can afford to pay the tax.
Mr.. Hewes said the questions raised
by him had not been answered, just as
he had expected. If this proposed tax
RI1aT ma .Nf oh
so per cent. of income in taxation. The
Hewes amendment was lost by a vote
of 1T to, 80,
Appeals from Speaker.
When the Peasley amendment was
| reached, which would divert the money
received from the towns in taxes from
| corporations direct to the state, Mr..
| lsbeu raised the point that the amend
ment was out of order, as it was not
germane to the original bill. The
| point of order was well taken and Mr..
Peasley appealed from the decision of
the speaker, which was the first like
| appeal of the session. Mr.. PeaSley ex-
| whether the $760,000 received was to
remain in the state treasury or be
divided among a few favored cities.
The ruling of the chair was sus-
tanned with but one dissenting vote.
Huxley Amendment, Too.
| Mr.. Huxley of Stamford offered an
| amendment that the taxation of gas,
water and electric companies be fixed
| at L per cent, instead of 1 IL per
| cent. Mr.. Sanford of New Haven
| spoke in favor of the amendment, as
| local taxation was already burden
| some. Mr.. Brooks of Torrington said
| he owned stock in three corporations
! but was favorable to an increase in
| tax. Mr.. F'oord of Stamford, Mr.
/ Ra RI Oft IF nd nd Of
| New Haven expressed themselves
against the amendment. Mr.. Sher-
| wood of Westport said he was paying
| 10 per cent. on the gross income on the
little property he owned, which was
much more in proportion to what is
| paid by these companies. The Huxley
| amendment was lost.
PeasIey's Plea Failed.
| Mr.. Peasley of Cheshire offered
amendment striking out two sections
of the bill which relates to the fran
chise tax of l IL per cent, which was
| excessive, especially insofar as the in
| surance companies are concerned, he
| said. A company now paying 100000
| in taxes will be obliged to pay $50, 900
| more. The bill, he said, had teeth that
| should be extracted. The insurance
| companies are already paying a larger
| tax than in other states, where taxa
| ton is upon the gross receipts of the
| company. Mr.. PeaSley spoke at much
| length and demonstrated that he was
not IN harmony with those intent on
| rushing business through just for the
| sake of early adjournment. He said
| this bill as reported would tend to
| drive the insurance companies out of
| the state. Mr.. Rogers of Litchfield
| said as manufacturers had to pay in
| creased tax the insurance companies
should take their medicine. This
| Peasley amendment was lost.
Another Point of Order.
Mr. Stoddard of Woodbridge offered
amendment which would not change
| the rate of taxation but provided that
| the local tax shall continue as in the
past. Mr. Isbell raised point of order
| that it was not within the rules which
| requires that amendments to this bill
| shall have been printed in the journal.
| The speaker said the point raised was
correct, but as Mr.. Peasley had been
permitted to proceed without objection
| he would allow the presentation of Mr..
| Stoddard's amendment. This was dis
cussed by Messrs. Isbell of Ansonia,
and Taylor of Danbury. The former
| gentleman said this amendment was
not required and if adopted the meas
| ure would have to be returned to the
| senate and cause delay. Mr.. Taylor
asked Mr.. Isbell if he was afraid of the
senate and received response that he
was not afraid of anybody or anything.
| Mr.. Stoddard said the collection of To-
cal taxes was not referred to in any
way and should be referred to in this
| bill. Mr., Isbell said the committee
| was willing to take a chance with the
| people on this bill as presented.
The Stoddard amendment was re-
| jected and the original bill was passed
State Police Superintendent.
The act to increase the salary of
Superintendent Egan ofthe state police
| from $4,000 to $4,000 was taken from
the calendar. Mr.. Hyde explained that
the chief had served for 13 years and
his work had been increased by the
| addition of the charge of the moving
picture houses and weights and meas
ures. The commissioners advocated an
increase to $1,000, but the judiciary
committee recommended an increase to
$500.
| Mr.. Eaton of East Haven opposed
the raise as representing the commit
| tee on appropriations, stating that the
chief already received a larger salary
than either the chief of police of Hart
/ ford, New Haven and Bridgeport, who
had a much larger force of men than
| the state police.
Mr.. Shaw Of Reading favored stand
| ing by the appropriation committee,
| the only one that knew the facts in the