Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1916-07-23
OUTLINES POSITION
TAKEN BY MERCHANTS
attorney George Bryan Analyses
Controversy Over Tax on
Capital.
CITY MUST RECoup ELSEWHERE
Says Merchants Have for Years Paid
Grossly Excessive Ratc-Nhat the
City Gains Under Terms of Scgrc-
CATION Act.

~ Judge Richardson's decision holding
;Ethnt the city. in taxing capital OF mcr-
sbchants, is limited 10 maximum of 80
Z cents on the 500 instead OF $l.io the
i rate applied by the city 10 all intani;i-
S blcs prior to tho tax reforms OF 1918,
al and which il has undertaken 10 appl%
4 again in the case OF tho capital OF Inc
4 5Drewry- Hughes Company. has brought
ITO the from; a question which Is GIVING
$the city budgct-mak"rs grave con
Germ
3H CITY Attorney Pollard has already
z served notice that an appeal VIII be
Is taken from Judge Richardson's de-
!; Sision to the State supreme Court In
4 the meantime, the Finance Committee
rs will hold { special meeting To discuss
ways and means for meeting tn" Sl5o--
deflcit which, II is estimated Will re-
&sult If the courts should uphold the
ie3iower tax rate
u Attorney George Bryan, who. with
e81lill MONTAGUE is counsel for the
D Drewry -liughes Company, last night
s. made tho following analysis OF the con-
X Irovcrsy:
s!who uphold The claim OF the city would
Il scem 10 be that ii IS hard rulina
Sn that If sustained on appeal, 1t Will
( cause a loss III revenue OF $4,000 or
; more. But this view oNerlcoks entirely
= certain fundamental facts. Among these
are that the legislation upon which the
ruling OF the Hastings Court was pre-
dicatcd is the tax segregation act
passed by the General Assembly OF
4 Virginia In March, 1915. by which, TO
large extent, the state and local tax
4 system OF the Commonwealth were
n revolutionized and made over. The dis
!. erection Of the Legislature. which by
3 express permission Of the Constitution
OF Virginia (Scction 1922 was cXerCis-
ablo to this end after 1918. must con
!. troll, and to it cities, counties ana in
dividualS must bow.
BASED on THEORY
OF SPECIFICATION ACr
Further, It is apparently forgotten
by those who feel aGSrleNed by inc
~ decision in the Drcwry- Hughes Com
pany case that the theory Of the scgrc-
cation act is entirely equitable. and
y shat where subject is Withdrawn
IS from the power Of local taxation or tho
; rate thereon, rs in the present case, is
limited. full consideration is given IN
= its stead. Thus the state SurrcndcTs
#tcntirely its right 10 tax real estate
4 and tangible personal property through
ont its borders except, temporarily
q that ii collects 10 cents or the $lr,
,s- of the assessed value for school pug
rs poses), and il turns over these valuable
Z assets TO the cities and counties 70,
their revenue and support. Accordingly
~ the city OF Richmond 1T once increase,
y its rate upon the real property within
4 its limits by - cents or the 800. Thi.
alone yields il an increased revenue
OF ulore than S250.o0r
Again, The segregation act, for Ger
tain reasons which commented them
selves to the Judgment of the I.egis
lature, provided for 4 maximum rate
State and local. unou intangible prop
Il orty. This maximum was % cents
90 cents TO the STATE and 80 cents q
lie city Now merchants capital IL
j an intangible and nothing else, ant
was expressly admitted 10 bc such IN
The brewry-Hughcs Company case. OBJ
Vious!y the city must adJus; It's fina!!-
cial system! 30 existing conditions.
The contention Of those VINO toe
hastily, perhaps. nGorSe the cityS side
- thIs matter entirely oVcr.ooks an
other materia, consideration, namely
THAT rhere IS 10 real or theoretical di!'
ference between tho capital Of = ne-
chant and tast OK manufactures V
the city mas been taxing that az TN.
former al Sl40 and tina, of th- latte,
III 80 cents. SlIo less why? ra'
amy oHe suggest q substantial reason
for SUCH material or for any dlt
ference?