The Chattanooga news. [volume] (Chattanooga, Tenn.) 1891-1939, 1920-07-28


told him that the editor OF The New
wIote the report OF the tax commission
which was rendered TO the general as.
sembly in 1915. Gov. Roberts theI
stated that the editor OF The Newi
was now condemning his new tax laws
There Is nothing inconsistent In thai
fact. Indeed what else could be ex
pected? II Gov. Roberts had been guided
at all by the report prepared by Col
Oscar Holiday. Judge Gholson, That
A. Cox. Leo Goodman, J. w. Vanden
and the writer in 1915 and in 1917 his
tax system would not be 30 faulty. II
Is incorrect for Gov. Roberts to say
that The Chattanooga News has in
dorsed his tax laws. When they were
introduced we set out the chief de-
fects. The governor admitted to the
writer the laws were mere makeshifts.
snd to be followed up by something bet
ter. We wrote Chief Statistician Louthan
calling attention TO needed changes. In
the editorial we wrote before Col.
Crabtree announced az q candidate for
governor we indicated specifically some
Of the changes that ought to be made
at an extra session Of the legislature
and said that II Gov. Roberts would
promise to make those changes. repeal
the utility law and do certain other
things we would support him. His
administration since that time has been
shown faulty in many other respects
end the tax laws are by no means the
only issue. In an editorial printed on
April 20, when Gen. Tyson had an
nounced he would not be . can
didate for governor. and which the
Nashville Banner falsely credits us
with printing on May 90. We said
OF tho. tax system, 1--WE cannot
yet tell whether 1t is going to be sue
cess" In other editorials we said the
only means the taxpayers had OF know
ing was when the tax books were
opened for the boards OF equalization.
Our readers know what happened and
what has been developed. In q lengthy
editorial Monday we showed the linz
portant differences between the recAnt
legislation and that proposed In 1915
end 1917. There 10 no similarity In
the system proposed by the special tax
commission OF 1918 and 1917 and that
put In effect by Gov. Roberts, Senator
Louthan has written the editor OF The
Nows that the report made in 1915 was
the best ever prepared on taxa
tion in Tennessee. Even the Chatta-
nooga Times commended It heartily.
the only product Of our pen We believe
which ever received praise from that
source, and now It develops that they
didn't know who wrote It, II 10 . pity
tho report Of that commission has
gone for naught. We doubt -
Gov. Roberts ever read It befcfe
he had his fearfully and wonder
fully made tax bill passed. lie seems
to have acquainted himself somewhat
with the subject now and when he calls
an extra seasion Of the legislature he
ought to include some Of those changes
demanded in the state platform. which
are in line with the criticism made by
The News. and in addition other
changes which have been shown 10 be
necessary by the exposition OF the COM
pltte failure of tho new tax laws to do
Justice TO all.
As some readers may have over
looked that editorial or have not in
mind the differences we set out be-
tween the measures proposed In 1915
and 1917 and those passed in 1919 we
epitomiSe the principal differences In
this auocinct statement:
The Rye tax bills provided for . tax
commission OF three members. one
from each grand division OF the state,
and tho total expense would have been
about $4,000 a year.
The Roberts law puts the duties OF n
tax commission on the railroad and
public utilities commission, increases
the salaries Of the members Of that
commission 1900 sAoh. empowers them
to employ large number Of tax statls-
ticians. most OF whom were members
Of tho legislature that voted for the
act. and the cest 90 far 10 about
$4,000.
The Rye tax bills provided for as
sessmenta to be made by the county
assessors. who should report 70 the tax
commission. and whose work was sub
jeet to review by tho commission, The
Roberts act empowers the statistieians
to make tentative, assessments which
are thrust on the assessor and he 10
forced In many cases to accept them,
with the threatsthat the whole county
win be subjected TO an arbitrary raise
by the state board Of equalization.
The Rye tax bills provided for limita-
tlon OF the state, county and city rates
on all property. No county or city
could increase the amount Il collected
from taxpayers more than . per cent
In one year. The Roberts tax law
limits the rate only on state taxes.
ard does not begin to limit that until
tho total aggregate of the state has
been increased from seven hundred mil
lion dollars TO a billion dollars So there
is bound TO be an increase OF taxes OF 20
10 % per cent.
Under the Rye law the tsx commits
sion, composed Of . separate board