portant question as to the liability of this Company to the franchise tax.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO. VS. WM. A. WRIGHT, COMPTROLLERGENERAL, ET AL.

This case involves the liability to taxation of the freight depot of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company located in Atlanta. It is built upon land owned by the Georgia Railroad & Banking Company and the contention of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company is under the provisions in the charter of the Georgia Railroad & Banking Company the property is exempt from taxation. This case is now pending in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO. VS. WM. A. WRIGHT, COMPTROLLERGENERAL.

This case involves the taxability of debentures issued by the Atlanta & West Point Railroad Company to the Georgia Railroad & Banking Company. The Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. is seeking to enjoin the collection of this tax upon the ground that it is the lessee of these bonds, that the same is not taxable and their situs if taxable is outside of the State of Georgia. The case is now pending in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

NEAR BEER TAX CASES.

By virtue of an Act approved September 5th, 1908, a tax was imposed upon every person, firm or corporation manufacturing within the limits of this State any beverage or drink in imitation of or intended as a substitute for beer, ale, wine, whiskey or other alcoholic, spirituous or malt liquors in the sum of Five Hundred Dollars; and upon every person, firm or corporation selling any beverage intended as a substitute for beer, ale, wine, whisky, or other alcoholic, spirituous or malt liquors, the sum of Two Hundred Dollars, for each calendar year or part thereof.

This Act had for its purpose the raising of revenue to be used for the development and conduct of the penitentiary system of the State. It was assailed from all sides as unconstitutional. Injunctions were sued out in the counties of Richmond, Bibb, Muscogee, Fulton, Clarke, and possibly others. The Fulton case was tried first before Hon. W. D. Ellis, judge of the Superior Court of Fulton County, who sustained the validity of the Act. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia and there the judgment of the lower court was affirmed. I am advised as a result of the tax imposed under this Act there has been collected and now in the Treasury of this State over Two Hundred Thousand Dollars.

In this connection I call attention to the fact that the duty of receiving the money and issuing the license to dealers in the article mentioned is put upon the ordinaries of the counties without compen

sation. It occurs to me that if this Act is to remain of force it should be amended so as to put the duty of collecting the tax upon the tax collector with the usual compensation, or if it is to remain as now, it should be amended so as to compensate the ordinaries for this service.

GEORGIA RAILROAD & BANKING COMPANY VS. WM. A. WRIGHT, COMPTROLLERGENERAL, ET AL.

This case involves the right of the State to tax the property of the Georgia Railroad & Banking Company as other property in this State is taxed. The Georgia Railroad & Banking Company sought to enjoin the collection of a tax against it as it insists, that under its charter provision the tax rate is limited to one-half of one per cent on its net income. The case is now pending on appeal in the Supreme Court of the United States.

It is the contention of the State that there never was any limitation of the tax rate on the property of the Georgia Railroad & Banking Company under any of its charter provisions, but that the limitation was upon the shares of stock in the hands of the shareholder. This case will likely be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States during the year 1909. The original capitalization of this Railroad Company was approximately Four Millions of Dollars. The present value of the property of the Company is estimated at Twelve Millions. It is

the insistence of the State even if the tax limitation as set forth in its charter has any application to the property of the Company that it could not be extended beyond the original subscription, to-wit, Four Million, and that in any event Eight Millions of its property is subject to taxation at the general rate.

THE BANK BUREAU.

There was an Act passed by the General Assembly approved August 22d, 1907, establishing a Bank Bureau in the Treasury Department of this State. Among the requiremnets of this Act it became my duty as Attorney-General, when a bank was adjudged insolvent to institute proper proceedings in the proper court for the purpose of having a receiver appointed to take charge of such bank and to wind up the affairs and business thereof for the benefit of its depositors, creditors and stockholders.

In pursuance of the provisions of this Act I have filed petitions, as follows: John C. Hart, AttorneyGeneral vs. The Neal Bank; John C. Hart, AttorneyGeneral vs. Citizens Bank of Abbeville; John C. Hart, Attorney-General vs. The Glennville Bank.

In the first named receivership the State had on deposit with The Neal Bank at the time of its failure the sum of $204,373.98. Subsequent to putting the bank in the hands of a receiver I filed an intervention in behalf of the State setting up that it was a preferred creditor and asking the Court for an

order directing the receiver to pay over to the Treasurer of the State the money on deposit at the time of the failure. This intervention was filed and tried before Hon. W. D. Ellis, judge of the Superior Court of Fulton County. He adjudged that the State was entitled to the priorities claimed. The case was appealed by the creditors of The Neal Bank and tried before the Supreme Court on the __d day of 1908. The Supreme Court adjudged the priorities claimed by the State.

-"

RECOMMENDATIONS.

In the exercises of the privilege conferred upon me by law of recommending needful legislation I take the liberty of embodying in this report, marked Appendix A, the report of the committee appointed by the Georgia Bar Association on Jurisprudence, Law Reform and Procedure. I very warmly commend these recommendations because emanating from the Georgia Bar Association, composed very largely of the leading lawyers of this State.

1