Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-10-06
Discrimination Denied
i'm Virginia Tag Attitude

70 the Editor of The Star:
Certain statements in the Washing
ton papers have tended to give the
impression that it is the policy of the
/ Virginia authorities to discriminate
against Washington motorists. State
ments of this sort are so apt to pro-
woke groundless antagonisms and to
interfere with the exceedingly cordial
relations now existing between the
two jurisdictions that they should be
corrected. The action of the Virginia
authorities is not directed against the
residents of the District of Columbia,
but against a certain small proper
ton of the residents of Virginia who,
while gladly availing themselves of
the improved roads being rapidly
built in the State, seek to evade their
Just proportion of the resultant tax
by operating under the much cheaper
District of Columbia licenses, even
though they are actually residents of
| Virginia.
Having observed that other COM
munities were paying off bonds issued
for roads long since worn out, the
State of Virginia determined to build
it's highways on pay -as-you.go"
basis. During the past year the State
expended AZ per cent of its total in
come on roads, and it has in the past
five years constructed many hundreds
of miles Of wide, straight, concrete
roads, and it will not be long before
every part of the State can be reached
| over roads of this character.
| The money to build these roads is
derived from the Accent tax on gaso-
| line and from the automobile license
| fees. Because Of the pay-as.you-go
plan, these license fees are much
h rrI %tn To- At
Columbia, but the people seem to be
satisfied to pay the tax in order to get
| good roads quickly and without the
burden of a great Understanding
debt.
But, as stated, few persons, though
resident in the State, some of them
the year around and who daily use
the improved roads, have persisted
for long period in securing the
cheap District of Columbia licenses
Naturally, the man who was paying
his full share of the tax objected to
also paying the share of his tax
lodging neighbor. and after long de-
| lay and much patience upon the part
of the authorities action is being
| taken against some of these persons
Further, an important commercial
concern, having it's place of business
| in Virginia and operating a large fleet
of heavy trucks between Virginia and
! Washington, is operating under Dis
| trict licenses. These trucks are used
! practically exclusively for hauling
| from the plant of the concern into
| Washington. The owner of those
/ trucks takes the position that since he
| personally is resident Of Washington
| he has a right to avoid the payment
| of the Virginia tax. His example was
promptly followed by another owner
| of a large fleet of trucks, a contractor,
| who lives in Arlington County and
has lived there for not less than 20
years. Encouraged by the example of
the manufacturer, the contractor at
| tempts to domicile his trucks in the
District and operate them in Virginia
under District licenses. That is to
| say, the manufacturer contends that
it is the domicile of the owner that is
controlling, while the contractor con-
tends that it is the domicile of the
| trucks that is controlling. But the net
result is that Mister Little Home
Owner is paying the tax of both of
| them 1t is this conditions that the
authorities are attempting to reach.
In conclusion, l want to say that
| during the period when an automo-
| bile war existed between Maryland
| and the District of Columbia, Virginia
declined to take advantage of the sit
uation and yielded as full reciprocity
| to the people of the District as she did
to those of the several States. The
attitude of the State in the past is
sufficient guarantee that her handling
of these questions in the future will
be equitable and just.
FRANK G. CAMPBELL.