Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

DISCUSSION-LEGISLATION OF 1910

MR. T. A. POLLEYS (Minnesota): I noted in Mr. Robinson's paper that there have been certain changes in the gross receipts in Oklahoma as to certain public service corporations. Am I correct in assuming that all those changes were in the direction of an increase?

MR. CLEMENT F. ROBINSON (Maine): I think you are probably correct in assuming it, although I did not compare them one by one.

MR. K. K. KENNAN (Wisconsin): There is perhaps a slight correction to make in the very interesting paper to which we have just listened. I appreciate fully, as a lawyer, the difficulties of ascertaining what a legislature has done or tried to do. In the matter of the proposed federal constitutional amendment there are, in fact, thirteen States which may be said to have acted upon it, out of which eight have ratified it. In the case of Kentucky, both houses of the legislature passed the resolution, practically unanimously, but an error crept into the copy of the amendment by which the words "on incomes" were omitted. I had a personal letter from Governor Willson in regard to that in which he explained the situation. He vetoed the bill and sent it back, and the House repassed it in the form in which he asked, but when it came into the Senate they took the ground it was all right in its original form, and they declined to take further action. The matter went to the Attorney-general, but I do not know what recommendation he

made.

The States that have rejected the amendment are New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Louisiana; although in Louisiana it cannot fairly be called a rejection, the House being strongly in favor of it, but the Senate preferring that it should be sent to a referendum two years hence, two years

from last May, and I think from the newspaper reports the chances are fair that it will be ratified then.

JUDGE OSCAR LESER (Maryland): It may be interesting to the delegates to know that, as I understand the decisions, in the case of a constitutional amendment to the Federal Constitution, the States which have ratified it cannot recall that action. The States which have not ratified it can change their minds and ratify it some time in the future. This amendment may become law fifty years from now.

MR. K. K. KENNAN (Wisconsin): In corroboration of that remarkable fact, I would like to call attention to a somewhat ludicrous occurrence which happened in 1873 at the time of the "Salary Grab" - as it was called-in Congress, when the congressmen raised their salaries. The Ohio legislature was so incensed at the action of Congress that it passed an act ratifying a constitutional amendment, fixing the salary of congressmen at a very low rate, which had been proposed by Congress in 1789 and was still awaiting ratification.

MR. WILLIAM H. CORBIN (Connecticut): Mr. Robinson tells me that he did not include Connecticut because we had no legislation there last year. As there was no paper presented to the last Conference on this subject, it seems only fair to say Connecticut did something at the last session of the legislature. It provided for election of assessors for terms of three years, one to be elected each year, which system displaced the old system of annual election. It also amended our law taxing real estate, requiring the separation of the valuation of land from buildings. It also provided for the taxation of tangible personal property belonging to nonresidents which has remained in any town seven months in the year. This brought into the list of taxation property of nonresidents in Connecticut which has never been taxed before. Our old poll tax law of $1 and our military commutation law of $2 were abolished, and there was substituted therefor a personal tax law of $2, upon all male persons between 21 and 60, which goes into effect this October. Our inheritance tax law was amended so that we now have a rate of 5 per cent on collaterals, with no exemption whatever. It is also provided that estates of nonresident decedents will be entitled only to the pro

portion of the $10,000 exemption, which is provided for lineal estates in Connecticut, which the property in Connecticut belonging to the deceased nonresident's estate bears to the rest of the estate wherever situated.

FIFTH SESSION

THURSDAY MORNING, SEPTEMBER 1, 1910

CHAIRMAN, HON. Z. W. BLISS, RHODE ISLAND

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

1. COMMITTEE ON MODEL INHERITANCE TAX LAW.

Chairman, Wm. H. Corbin, State Tax Commissioner,
Hartford, Conn.

2. DISCUSSION.

3. COMMITTEE ON UNIFORM INSURANCE TAX.

Chairman, Lawson Purdy, President Department of Taxes and Assessments, City of New York.

4. DISCUSSION.

5. COMMITTEE ON CAUSES OF FAILURE OF THE GENERAL PROPERTY TAX.

Chairman, Oscar Leser, Judge Appeal Tax Court, Baltimore, Md.

6. DISCUSSION.

7. COMMITTEE ON UNIFORM CLASSIFICATION OF REAL ESTATE. Chairman, T. C. Townsend, State Tax Commissioner, Charleston, W. Va.

8. DISCUSSION.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »