The Chattanooga news. [volume] (Chattanooga, Tenn.) 1891-1939, 1920-07-28
NO INCONSISTENCY THERE.

1919, ana unlike that introduced by thu
tax commission IN 1915 and 1917.
The dispatch from Clarksville did
not stste that Judge Ghoson said that
the recommendations Of the special tax
commissions Of 1915 and 1917 were sim
liar 10 what has been put In effect by
Coy. Roberts. The Judge 10 a very sim
cere man and could not be Induced to
stretch the truth an, inch, lie would
have told Gov, Roberts that the differ
oncos were so great as to make an i'm
passable chasm. II Gov. Roberts visits
Johnson City he might ask Hon. Thad
A. Cox II the two tax measures are at
ali similar. He would get mo" for an
answer. II he visits Cookeville he
would be unable 10 induce Hon. Oscar
Holiday. who drew the bills in 1918
and 1917. to say they were In any i'm
portant respect like those which came
from the able pen OF the chairman Of
tho tax commission. Col. Holiday IL
supporting the governor, but the state
platform dsnounces the bills Col. Holla-
day drew a. "drastic and revolution
ary." The idea Of any administration
suilty OF the state tax statistician ma
chine criticlsing the tax bills which
Gov. Rye sought to put over! Those
bills were neither drastic nor revolu-
tionary, but they presented a system
already tried out In Ohio and other
states and would have been certain of
successful operation.
Let Gov. Roberts explain why he
never recommended those bills. The
state Of Tennessee had appointed the
tax commission for the purpose Of In,
vostigating the question and present.
Ing the measures. Why was their work
discarded Was II because of pique at
Gov. Rysf
The morning paper closes its edi-
toriai this morning with this paragraph:
(which would seem to indicate that the
tar laws OF 1919 do not constitute the
motive Of the opposition to Gov. Rob-
erts." This 10 evidently aimed at The
News. II 10 a sort OF insinuation which
requires no answer we believe. Our ef-
forts for tax reform began In 1895 and
Rave been continued since. II we
thought the new system Of the governor
was a step forward we would support
It. But we believe the work has TO
b. done over again. The platform OF
the party adopted at Nashville admits
m much. It calls for certain amend
ments. There 10 nothing bitter" in
our opposition to Gov. Roberts. We are
discussing his record a. governor II
he had shown business qualifications
for the ONCE we would favor his re-
naming In II. The discussion 10 help
full because close attention II directed
to very abstract subject and great
good win come Of It. In any event The
morning paper 10 unable to see that
anyone can ever be free Of some selfish
motive. Since II insinuatea that we
have other reasons for opposing the
governor. we might ask the morning
paper II 1t has peculiar reasons for
favorlng hlm2 VIII the Chattanooga
Times agree to publish the assessments
OF twenty-five pieces of property taken
at random over the state and along
side publish the assessment put on Its
own property Then we shall see II we,
have in Tennessee n real system of
cash value assessments" which the
editor OF The News has always favored
and the Times now claims to favor,
but the practice 10 not conspicuous
where II 10 concerned.