Samuel C. Eastman, of New Hampshire: I do not desire to object to receiving the report, but a motion to adopt the recommendations of the committee carries with it the adoption of section 3 on page 2 "that we cannot recommend that state taxation shall be upon property actually within the state only." The report goes on to say that "the taxation of personal property should be at the residence of the owner." So to decide would be contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court, which has already decided that states may tax tangible personal property within their limits, even if the owner resides elsewhere. If now it is also within the scope of the state of the residence of the owner to tax that personal property, then double taxation constitutionally will necessarily follow, and double taxation certainly is a wrong, and I cannot agree to vote for such a proposition. Personal property for the purpose of taxation is often divided into tangible and intangible, and most of the disputes that have arisen have come from attempts to tax evidences of indebtedness, and on that there is a great difference of opinion. To adopt the report in its present form would commit the Association to something which is seriously questioned by many, and I hope by a majority of those present. The discussion of the subject would open a wide door, and therefore I content myself now with this expression of dissent, hoping that the Bar Association will not adopt the recommendation of the committee. W. B. Swaney, of Tennessee: I move that the question be divided. Let us vote first on the resolution recommending the passage of the bill. As I understand it, the motion really contemplates the adoption of the resolution in the first instance, and the question of the adoption of the report as a whole should come up separately. Frank E. Gregg, of Colorado: I second that motion. The President: The motion is made and seconded that the question be divided. The motion for a division of the question was adopted. Now the question is on the adoption of the resolution reported by the committee, approving the act to authorize the maintenance of actions for negligence causing death in maritime cases. The resolution was adopted. The question remains as to what shall be done with the rest of the report. Frederick N. Judson, of Missouri : I move that the third recommendation, on page 2, be recommitted to the committee. I agree with the gentleman from New Hampshire that it is an attempt to state an economic proposition of taxation in altogether too compact a compass, and I do not think it is the province of this Association to deal with economic questions in the adjustment of taxation that may well perplex economists. I therefore move that it be recommitted to the committee. Theodore Sutro, o New York: I second that motion, and in doing so I desire to say that in my opinion the adoption of this recommendation of the committee would give rise to confusion. In many of the states, notably in New York, we have a special statute which has existed for years taxing specifically capital invested in the state by non-residents, and if the American Bar Association adopts a recommendation of this kind it will conflict directly with the statutes of many states. Moreover, this question has been carefully considered by the various commissioners that have been appointed in the different states, and the conclusion has been reached, and it has also been declared by the Supreme Court of the United States, that under certain circumstances it is desirable for the purpose of preventing evasion of taxation that the personal property of non-residents of a state should be taxed. P. W. Meldrim, of Georgia: I am sorry I was not present when the report of the committee was read. I may say, sir, that the committee has no objection to a recommittal of this matter if by recommittal any useful purpose may be subserved. With reference to the objection raised that the Association should not deal with an economic question, it must be remembered that the question was referred to your committee by resolution of this body; and, therefore, it became the duty of the committee to consider and report upon it. The resolution referred to the committee, so far as it is relevant to the matter now before us, was: "That state taxation should be upon property actually within the state only." Now mark the proposition submitted: "That state taxation should be upon property actually within. the state only." No reference was intended to taxation upon real estate, for real estate is necessarily governed by the law of situs. Therefore, the question before your committee was this: Should the committee recommend, as proposed by the resolution, that taxation on personal property should only be in accordance with the law of the place where the personal property might be found? The general law is that personalty follows the person, and rather than recommend a radical change we deemed it the better policy to adhere to the old rule. The evil sought to be remedied was that of the tax payer putting his personal property, particularly securities, out of the jurisdiction of the state and the reach of the tax gatherer. To recommend that "state taxation should be upon property actually within the state only" is to require the tax collector to locate the personalty in the state. If the correct view be that the tax gatherer shall lose sight of the tax payer, and shall seek all over the American union for securities that may be hidden, then let this Association refuse to adopt the report of the committee. If, on the other hand, the view of your committee be correct that personal property follows the person, and that the state has jurisdiction for tax purposes wherever it has jurisdiction over the person of the tax payer, then let the Association so declare and adopt the report of the committee. There is no objection on the part of the committee to having the subject matter recommitted to it, but it is doubtful if, under the terms of the resolution, we can do anything better than we have done. Fabius H. Busbee, of North Carolina : The difficulty seems to be that the committee has attempted to state in a few sentences the law governing the situs of personal property for taxation, while it would require pages to make an accurate statement, however condensed. Certain kinds of personal property naturally follow the person of the owner. Other personal property has a situs of its own. If the Chairman owned in Missouri a herd of cattle which had never been out of the state, would not such personal property be taxable in Missouri instead of in the state of the residence of the owner? If he owned a share of stock, personal property, in a manufacturing plant in another state, would not the property be taxable where it was located, and not merely where the owner of the share resided? In the broad statement of the report, therefore, all sorts of inconsistencies will arise. Without going into the infinite ramification of the doctrine of the taxation of personal property, I hope this part of the report will be again referred to the committee for further consideration. James O. Crosby, of Iowa: The gentleman who has preceded me has in part advanced the idea that I wished to advance. There are two kinds of personal property, goods and chattels, which would properly come under this third section. State taxation should be placed upon the goods and chattels within the state, but it is a general rule, I believe, that so far as moneys and credits are concerned the situs of taxation is the residence of the owner. It seems to me that this recommendation is, therefore, somewhat untrue. We should recognize the two kinds of personal property that which consists of goods and chattels on the one hand, and on the other moneys and credits, which follow the residence of the owner. Robert D. Benedict, of New York: May I say for the information of the Association that the resolution as referred to the committee was that state taxation should be upon property actually within the state only. The committee considered that, and stated as its determination that "we cannot recommend that state taxation should be upon property actually within the state only." Now the motion to recommit the third section of the report would carry back to the committee a reconsideration of that proposition. I do not believe that this Association will differ substantially on that part of the report of the committee. The questions which have been discussed here seem to arise on the subsequent article and clause of the third proposition, and if those were referred back to the committee I do not think there would be any objection. Fabius H. Busbee: Could you not strike out the two clauses, then, which follow that? A. J. McCrary, of New York: I am responsible for the wording of this resolution-not in the sense that some have discussed it, but it was worded in the form that it is for the reason that in the courts of the State of New York to-day there are questions being discussed relating to the taxation of property belonging to corporations, property which is absolutely taxable and is absolutely taxed in other jurisdictions, in other states, property belonging to a corporation which never had its situs within the State of New York. Therefore the question arose, and is now before the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, whether a corporation which has property in half a dozen different states, which property is now being taxed by each of those several states, shall also be taxed in the State of New York for the entire |