Americus times-recorder. [volume] (Americus, Ga.) 1891-current, 1916-08-22
TO THE VOTERS OF THE 3RD
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
ThOS. G. Hudson SuStainS His
Record AS Commissioner of
Agriculture

/ odAc, dbdlu5b MI. crisp ONDEh 1f1f
| EXCITEMENT OF DEFEAT, to prov,
the falsity of every of every charge b,
has made many Of which are too friv
ilous to deserve serious consideration
| am sure, If do prove, by facts o.
record, that Mr.. Crisp has distorted
and misstated the truth and the facts
In most Of the charges made against
my record, the public will conclude
that he is not honorable and fair il
his dealings with his fellow-man, and
therefore, unworthy to represent
them.
MY VOTE ON FRANCHISE TAX.
NOISIILY Mr.. CRISP POINTS TC
MY RECORD ON THE FRANCHISE
| TAX act while serving my district ii
the State Senate more than fourteen
years ago. Now, let us see about this.
The railroads of the state. prior to
/ this time had been returning theil
property for taxation on the basis Oh
! its physical value; that it, on what il
would cost to reinstall property Of
like character without regard to the
property's earning capacity. 1t was
seen that they mortgaged their prop.
erty and sold the bonds thereon large.
ly in excess of what it would cost to
re-install the property. This differ
ence represented value that every
body conceded should be taxed. TIC
illustrate: Suppose line of road
cost, to build and equip, $4,000 pei
mile; such would be returned for tax
alton at $4,000. That same road, il
was discovered, would be mortgaged
for forty or fifty thousand dollars a
mile and earn an income on the
amount for which it was mortgaged
This difference represented a value
that EVERYBODY CONCEDED
OUGHT TO BE TAXED.
There existed difference of opinion
as to how this tax should be levied
Some members Of the General Assem-
bly, believed that tax should be levi
ell on the gross earnings of the cor
porations, other members contended
that this difference in value was en-
bodied in the franchise right and
therefore, a special franchise tax
should be levied. The bill introduced
provided for taxing the franchise
| COlQC ll0luUSlS I'll liiC COuQullLtSG NAV
ing the bill under consideration, my
self included, believed it more equit-
able to tax gross earnings of the rail-
road, and, therefore, submitted tc
the Senate, for their consideration, q
majority report suggesting this
change. After careful consideration
the Senate adopted the original bill
and voted for the passage of the bill
At best, this was an open question
of procedure. | voted for the bill be-
cause l recognized that in some way
this difference in value should be tax
ed; but even now, believe greater
revenue would have accrued to the
state under the plan then advocated
That is, taxation on the gross earn
ings of these corporations.
Mr.. Crisp's effort to create the i'm
preston that 1 favored relieving the
railroads is base and contemplate. A
HALF TRUTH is MORE DECEIVING
THAN A FALSEHOOD OUT OF THE
WHOLE CLOTH. Is it by such meth
DDS as these, by imaginary defects and
willful distortion of my record that he
hopes to curry favor with the voters
to procure my defeat and secure his
election?
Mr.. CRISP CHALLENGES THE
SINCERITY OF MY VIEWS ON PRO-
HIBITION.
Now let us see about this.
Mr.. Crisp seems to be imbued with
the idea that it will help him wonder
! fully in his race, in the present state
of the public mind, if he can cast the
least suspicion on the sincerity OF
my views concerning the PROHIBI-
TION QUETION. This in face of the
fact that, long time ago, when 10
cal Option" represented the advanced
position of prohibitionists, l always
voted and worked for local option
whenever and wherever opportunity
presented itself. The very leaders OF
prohibition at that time advocated the
position. Later, after a great many
counties in the state had gone dry I'M
der local option, hope was entertained
that the entire state might go dry
during this period of transition even
the prohibitionist rank was divided, al
times, as to what constituted the best
method of suppression of the liquor
traffic. | hereby challenge Mr.. Crisp
and urge the voters of the district to
institute most searching comparison
on our individual record in prohibit
tons cause. While quibbling over my
views, publicly expressed, l challenge
him to introduce the evidence where
he ever openly and fervently es-
poused prohibition.
When did Mr.. Crisp become such a
rantankerous prohibitionist? Has any
body ever heard him deliver a prohi'
bition speech when prohibition was
real issue, when the cause was fierce
ly contested?
MOI dear Charlie, l consider youl
reference to my record on this issue
on par with your other misleading ant
malicious political clap-trap. You can
not deceive the people and make then
believe that you are the REAL COL
IATH" in prohibitions cause, and tina
III am MISERABLE HYPOCRITE be
cause voted for local option some
eighteen years ago.
Another great discovery made ant
amplified on by my opponent Is that
voted against the election of the coun