Page images
PDF
EPUB

The purpose of

property covered by its corporate franchise. this resolution was simply to fix the character of property which is not at any time within the situs of the owner, but is used exclusively within and is entirely within some other state, while the owner of the property has its situs in the State of New York. Now as the law has been administered-the state in which the property is located and where it is used has taxed the property, and the State of New York taxes the owner with its whole property in New York; thus the same property is taxed in the several states where located and also taxed in New York. It is property which never was and never will be in the State of New York. It is only necessary to state that proposition and every honest-dealing man will realize the injustice of it. I have therefore great faith that when the real spirit and purpose of this resolution is understood the language used in it will not be found subject to the criticism made upon it. It was intended that this property should be taxed in the state where it is located. It is already taxed there, and if it can, therefore, by virtue of the situs of the owner being in the State of New York, be taxed also in New York, then it is double taxation.

James O. Crosby:

May I ask the last speaker a question? This says that personal property shall be taxed under the laws of the state of the owner. I live in Iowa. Suppose I buy a mule in Missouri, shall I go back to Iowa and leave that mule here to be taxed under the State of Missouri?

A. J. McCrary:

I am not responsible for the report and the mule comes under that. I am speaking of the resolution now.

W. B. Swaney:

It strikes me that this resolution is referred to the wrong committee. The evil we are attempting to correct by this resolution is one that belongs to the Committee on Uniform State Laws and should be referred to that committee. To

illustrate: This evil arose a few years ago when the great mill owners were contemplating removing their manufacturing establishments to the South, and the question of organizing new corporations and dividing their property and their capital arose in a very pointed way. We had the evil pointed out in Tennessee and we cured it. The question is one of taxing intangible property. The question here is whether or not personal property should be taxed according to the laws of the state in which that property is situated, and the committee reports that it does not recommend the adoption of that resolution. In other words, that resolution would eliminate the question of intangible property. In Tennessee we had no law in reference to foreign corporations which protected them. They were subject at that time to double taxation to the full extent of their capital stock under the general law. We provided that when foreign corporations come to Tennessee they shall only be taxed pro rata with the actual value of the property brought into the state, thereby dividing the question of the intangible property that they brought into the state.

I think this would be corrected by a reference of this part of the report to the Committee on Uniform State Laws.

P. W. Meldrim:

In order to avoid unnecessary discussion, if the gentleman who moved to recommit will permit it I will say that it will be agreeable to the committee to strike out the two clauses to which objection has been made, as all we desired to do was to reach a conclusion.

Frederick N. Judson:

I do not believe in mutilating a report of a committee. The real difficulty here is, as stated by the gentleman from North Carolina, that the committee has undertaken to deal with a complicated economic question that has perplexed economists growing out of conflicting sovereignties in exercising the law of taxation, and the subject should therefore be considered by the Committee on Uniform State Laws. I

therefore ask leave to withdraw my motion to recommit and then to move that this part of the report be referred to the Committee on Uniform State Laws.

The President:

Is there objection to the gentleman's withdrawing his motion to recommit? There being no objection, the motion to recommit made by the gentleman from Missouri is withdrawn.

Frederick N. Judson:

I now move that this part of the report be referred to the Committee on Uniform State Laws.

Daniel Fish, of Minnesota:

I second the motion.

The motion was adopted.

The President:

The question now recurs upon the adoption of the remainder of the report.

Henry W. Palmer, of Pennsylvania:

I would like to inquire whether the adoption of the report will commit this Association to the conclusions reached in the first and fourth paragraphs on page 2?

The President:
Yes, sir; it will.

Henry W. Palmer:

Because, if the American Bar Association wishes to go on. record as stated in those paragraphs, it seems to me the subject ought to be discussed at least. First, it seems to be assumed in the first paragraph that Congress has the power to create corporations the object of which would be the carrying on exclusively of interstate commerce. There are people who dispute the power of Congress to do that. Secondly, the question arises, supposing that Congress has the power to create corporations the object of which would be exclusively to carry on interstate commerce, would that power include the right to authorize such companies to do a manufacturing business? Thirdly, upon a subject so wide and so large as the right of

Congress to regulate the trusts it seems to me that the American Bar Association ought not to commit itself in the manner proposed without some little discussion. I am one of those who believe that Congress has the right to incorporate companies for the purpose of carrying on interstate commerce, and also that it has the right to give such companies the power to manufacture in any state in which they may please to locate any article which enters into interstate commerce. I believe the time will come when all corporations engaged in interstate commerce will be compelled to take their charters from the federal government, and when that time arrives there will be no doubt about the power of Congress to regulate them. The regulating hand of Congress will be laid upon such corporations that now seem to enjoy a great deal of odium. The point I wish to make is this, that upon a subject so comprehensive and about which legal minds have arrived at different conclusions this Association ought not to put itself upon record without some discussion. Therefore, I move that the balance of the report be received and laid on the table.

The motion was seconded.

The President:

The motion before the house is that that part of the report relating to combinations and trusts which has not been referred to the Committee on Uniform State Laws by the vote just taken be received and laid on the table.

Robert D. Benedict:

I would like to correct the statement of the motion as the Chair has just made it. There is no direct reference to trusts in the resolution which was referred to our committee.

Henry W. Palmer:

I call attention to the statement on the first page of the report.

The President:

The Chair thinks that it stated the question before the house correctly. All of that part under subdivision II except such

as has been by the vote just taken referred to the committee on Uniform State Laws be now received and laid upon the table. I have nothing but the report before me, and not the resolution, and the committee's report puts this under the head of "Combinations and Trusts."

The motion was then adopted.

The President:

The question now recurs upon the adoption of the rest of the report.

The rest of the report was adopted.

The President:

The next report is from the Committee on Judicial Administration and Remedial Procedure.

A. J. McCrary, of New York:

Owing to the fact that some of the members of this committee were in Europe and others on vacations far from home, we were unable to have such a conference over the report as would enable us to present it and have it printed. I have a written report, which, under the rules, I suppose, may or may not be received, but if received it ought to be read, and I ask consent to read it.

The President:

The gentleman from New York asks unanimous consent to read the report which has not been printed. The Chair understands unanimous consent is given, and the gentleman may proceed.

A. J. McCrary:

A resolution was received by the Association this morning referring to this committee some questions relating to the evils resulting from mob violence. Our committee have covered that subject in our report, which I will now read.

The report of the committee was then read.

(See the Report in the Appendix.)

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »