New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-09-06
YROH PENNSYLVANIA.
srur rrxN.ar rtx-v,xDfcr AGAINST TIE
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY -DELA-


G~vespo.dxsess Of The n. Y. Tribune
HARRISBURG, september 2, 1859.
The Dauph,n County Court which has been in
s>.ion here for several Gays has dsposed OF several
very important cases Of a evil character, aud
a org them were ttose shall here no1ce-tse
8 4 Of which was that Of the Commonwealth OF
Pennsylvania ssains. the Pennsylvania Railroad
Company. 1t pss an appsai from settlement
nsde BY the Auditor Geoe-sl and State Treasurer
With the sand company, ~ho were alleged 70 De
in1ebted TO the State IN the sun OF Sc1,OOO tor q
psriod Of ve months, up to toe Let Of November
1T on account Of Tunnage Tax due the Coumoa-
wealth.. On freight carried over the road from
Psisd.lphis 10 Harrisburg They denied the con-
additionally Of the act Oft Legislature imposing
H., tax, ard conte nded that t5ey were NOT liable 70
Do; tax on goods &c. coniug from other States,
an passing through P.DDsylssni4 The counsel
A. the Common wealth, upon the other hand, III
s.!.. sbst the Pennsylvania Railroad was only .
sscal road, and pSsse.ssd DO Chartered pr'yes gss
he;end the boundaries Of the State-that the CON-
,sry have no right to act rs vsrehousemen TO re-
e<ive GOODS and for ward then. The most eminent
counsel were Engaged on both sides, aud they oc-
rupied the time IF the court but one day, aud on
Abe following ncrniDg, His Honor Judge Piersen
delivered his OPINION at ~ length after review
ips the facts in tae suit, to the Jury. lie charged
that the law imposing Tunnsge Tar upon the
Penosylyabis Railroad Company was clearly and
pnanestiooatly constitutional, and therefore he
directed the Jury 10 return verdict IN favor OF
the Commonwealth for the sUm claimed, namely
sol 1876 o. including interest to date. The Jury re-
tired Tor few miDUtes, aud returned with the
above verdict Duricg the entire progress OF the
trisl, the courtroom was crowded with members
Of the bar and citizens from various perts OF the
Union, IN the midst Of whom sat Governor Packer
And ey Governor Porter, all Of whom paid the
most marked attention to the proceedings. The
verde. was in accordance with the general expec-
taton of those who reside in this part of the State.
1t il supposed, however, that the Pennsylvanla
Railroad Company will appeal to the Supreme
Court Of this State.
On Thursday and Friday, sportion OF the time of
the court was occupied in the trial of the suit OF the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania act. the Delaware
and Hudson Canal Company, which, IN fact, IL SUBJ
stantiaIy Ney-York Corporation for very large
msiority Of the stockholders are residents of that
State The case was brought into court 90 an appeal
from u settlement Of the Auditor General, taS0g
the company on its capital stock, expended IN tins
State. This corporation was not regarded as sub
ject to the general tax laws OF the Commonwealth;
but provision was made for the taxation OF the
capital Of tie Company, by specla! act of Assem-
bly, passed in l5iS IL appeared that in compliance
with the requirements Of that act, the Delaware
and Hudson Canal Company made return of their
capital invested within the limits of Pennsy lvsDIa
amounting to upward OF 81 100000. In the
meantime, the Auditor General required them to
make return to his department OF all their invest
ments and expenditures, from time to time, within
the CompODW ealth, said return involving not only
far no apl he
improvements but the cost Of the real estate, new
ears etc, and upon that basis thereby increasing
the capital stock of said Company, and thus adding
n the cost against them. Now, IN tho fret place,
the Company denied that their real estate was the
subject Of tax, as part of their capital stock, Tor
the reason that it subject to local tax IN me
several counties wherein 1t was situated, and be
~ause tbe said taxes were from time to time paid
rs assessed. The second point wbereon the Dela-
ware & Hudson Canal Company rested their de-
fence was, that the Legislature OF pennsylvania
having passed a special act specifying that when
they were TO do in compliance with u, VIZ 10
make return under oath, Of their capital invest
ed in this Commonwealth, and they having made a
return showing tie capital to be over Sl,iO0,OO0,
that the Auditor General III requiring the Company
subsequently, to make return 10 nun OF the III
creased expenditures for improvements, etc, there
by ND to this date, than doubling the capital
II the Delaware & Hudson Canal Company, sub
authority of law and therefore the said Company
was not bound 10 pay tax upon capital over and
above the amount returned, in accordance with the
REQUIREMENTS of the act of lSio. In the absence
of the President of the Company, during TIN:
period from isiS up, the returns had been made
in compliance with the request OF the Auditor
General, by subordlnstes acting for the Company
which included not only the expenditures by tht
said Company for the enlargement of their works
h,,tt tor thar a
such as iron locomotives, etc, which IN no POM
Of view could be justly regarded as par
Of the capital stock Of the Company. Int
Court, in delivering its opinion to the Jury
in regard TO the first point, charged without hesita
ton that il wac never contemplated that the Com
monwsslth should exsct double taxes for the same
property and that the real estate of this Company
being subject 10 local taxation could not be consid
cred Ma part Of the capital stock and therefore 81
such could not be taxed. But, In regard tn IN;
second point, as regards the construction of tn,
Act Of lS!S, although he Judge Pierson) Ia,
reached The conclusion after great difficulty, an,
surmouu.ing formidable doubts in his own mind
that the Legislature intended, in order t. reac'
what would be fair basis for the taxation Of tn
Delaware and Hudson Canal ComPsny-to inolad
in their capital stoek--subect to taxSton-sucI
exptp dtures a. might be msde from time 10 time
for purposes of enlargement and Improvement &c
The iuIy found in accordance with the nstruc
tious of the Court for S23,633 ~; and although
the Company did not accomplish all thst the!
claimed in the decision OF The first point yet the.
gaiaed deduction in the settlement by the Auditor
General of over So, 00C and also the benefit Of th
chances in their favor of decision of the Saprem'
Court on the secoad point, writ of error hayioi
already been tsAea. The point already gsine'
amouats TO saving Of $1,000 in taxes upon tht
real estate now owned by the Delaware X Hud
son Canal Company every nice years.
The Ssre from this borough 10 New York via th
.a6 IN