The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1921-03-04
BELIEVE LOONEY
TAX BILL GIVEN
KNOCK OUT BLOW
MAURY DELEGATION RETURNS
FROM NASHVILLE GRATIFiED
AT RESULTS OF HEARING.
AATCHER'S GREAT ARGUMENT
Exposes the Unfair and Unjust Nature
of Measure That Would Result Di-
rectly In Double Taxation Of All Cor
porate Property.

Members of the Maury delegation
who went to Nashville on Tuesday
to protest against the passage of the
LoOney bill to tax the shares OF stock
in corporations, returned very much
gratified with the result of their days
work and they confidently predict that
the measure will be killed The bill
was heard by the joint committee on
taxation of >ihich the author, Senator
Looney, Is member. The delegation
from Maury county was joined by bus
mess men and manufacturers from
Chattanooga, Nashville, Jackson and
other places. 1t was the largest single
delegation in evidence.
The principal argument made
against the bill was that of Charles
Phillips Hatcher, of Columbia The
members of the local delegation pro-
nounced his speech one of the ablest
expositions of the question of taxa
tion that they had ever heard. He
was quick with replies to every ques-
ton and had supreme court decisions
at his fingers tips. Mr. Hatcher said
that the real author of the bill, Col.
Thomas H. PEBBLES, had been trying
for ten or twelve years to have this
bill introduced but not until this year
could he find member of the legisla-
ture who would sponsor it,
The Nashville Tennessean this
morning contains the following report
of the hearing:
THE injustice of senate bill No. 474,
known as the Looney bill, was so clear
ly pointed out to the members of the
joint legislative committee on tax re-
vision at the public hearing yesterday
afternoon that even Thomas PEBBLES,
of Columbia, back tax attorney, who
drafted the measure, admitted that it
was possible he was mistaken in his
contentious OF the equity and fairness
of the proposed law.
Forty or fifty manufacturers and
business men, representing different
sections of the state, appeared before
the committee to protest against the
proposed bill. The hearing was held
In the supreme court room, the follow
ing members of the committee being
present: Senators McGinninss, chair
man: Houk. Looney. Collier and Cum
mings, and Representatives Gailor,
secretary; Coleman, of Marshall; Mil
lican and Luther.
Having drafted tho bill, Mr.. Pee
bles was called upon by the commit.
tee to explain its provisions. He said
that its object was to reach for taxa
ton large volume of property which
is not now taxed. He referred to that
part of the constitution which says
that all property shall be taxed and in.
pipbSh 1iittt IL 10 tiiO uuV vi JIlG IteIS-
lature to carry out this Injunction.
&c. P. Hatchr of Columbia, met this
argument by citing certain specific
cases which had been heard before the
Tennessee supreme court, in which
that tribunal had held that while un.
der the constitution the proposed law
would not be double taxation, it would
be duplicate taxation, and that such
form of taxation, although legally per
missible, would be unjust and unfair.
In making the distinction between
double and duplicate taxation, Mr..
Hatcher explained that double taxa
ton is prohibited by law, and duplicate
taxation is double in fact, but not in
Law.
Mr.. Hatcher made the point that
the law as proposed by Senator Looney
and drawn by Mr.. PEBBLES would
either not tax any property or it would
tax twice.
" 1T is just as much double taxation,
he said, as to tax mans farm and
then to tax the deed to the farm which
Is an evidence of ownership. 1t is
just like taxing a certificate of depos.
it and also the money in the bank"