St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1868-10-16

This is owing, in part, to the method
adopted in making up the list. In some
localities the real, and portion of the
personal, estate, is assessed at about one
half its value; while in others, it is rep
resented in the list at Its full cash value.
The assessed value of the real and per-
sonal estate of Vermont was, in 1860,
nearly eighty-fve millions of dollars,
while its true value in money, according
to the census of that year, was over tive
hundred and fifteen millions. The ex-
isting laws require that the real and per-
sonal estate shall be set in the lists at
''its true value in money" The adop-
ton of any other course is unjust as we'll
as Illegal. 1t is the practice, on the part
of listers in some localities, to file their
lists in the town clerks office without the
oath prescribed by law, thereby easing
their consciences for any irregularities in
their mode of assessing the property set
in the lists 1t may he well to enquire if
a more faithful discharge of the duties of
listers would not be secured by prescrib-
ing some penalty for their neglect or vio-
lation of the requirements of the laws.
The right of appeal from the listers
lies only in the party whose property is
appraised. 1t has been suggested, that
it would be beneficial TO give the right of
appeal to any taxpayer, for if any part
of the property in a town is assessed at
loss than its true cash value, it is a mat
ter of interest to all taxpayers to have it
corrected. This right of appeal would
also ensure more faithful discharge of
the duties of listers.
The taxation of personal estate, in
vested in this state by non-rcsidents, has
frequently been the subject of legislation,
and, as yet, without any satisfactory re-
suit. An attempt was made at the last
session of the legislature to make law
to regulate the taxation of stock in rail-
roads held by non-residents. The bill
passed both houses on the last night OF
the session. 1t was concurred in by one
branch after the other had closed its
business and adjourned examination
Of the act, deemed it my duty to with
hold my approval, believing that had the
attention of the legislature been called to
The questions involved, the bill would not
have been passed.
AT the session of lS5 t, the law was
passed to which the bill in question was
an amendment. While neither affected
the tax ON the stock Of residents, the
two acts being identical in that respect,
the bill of the last session changed only
the manner OF assessing and collecting the
tax upon nonresident stockholders. and
repealed without reservation the law of
1851, SECTIONS IS and 50, and 90 Of
chapter IS of the general statutes.
BY the direction of n former legisla-
turc, proceeding, had been commenced to
enforce the collection OF the tax upon the
stock of non-residcnts in the Vermont
X Canada railroad company. A bill in
ch;.uccry. in behalf of such stockholders,
was therefore, brought against the state
treasurer, AMI an injunction procured re-
Siraining that officer from collecting the
tax. This suit Is now pending in the
supreme court of the ,nited States, and
it Is expected will he heard the present
winter. deem it the part of wisdom
10 postpone further legislation on this
subject until the courts have passed upon
the questions now under consideration.
| am advised 10y eminent counsel, that
should the decision OF the court be in ia
vor of the state, the enactment of the bill
of last session would render quite doubt
ul the power to collect the accrued taxes
now in arrears.-e>tirRated to amount to
over one hundred thousand dollars. The
inquiry from interested non-residents in
regard To the fate of the bill, since the
close of the last session, inclines me to
the opinion that there was n design in
the amendment, not apparent to the leg
stature when the bill was under consid-
Grafton, and it APPLY illustrates the evil
that may grow out of legislation under
a suspension of the rules during the clos
ing hours of a session.
There was in my mind another serious
objection to the Ill! The law of 1854
required the tax uP "a the stock of non
re-idents TO be pad mo the state treasu-
~, where all the people OF the state
would receive a proportionate benefit.
The proposed amendment gave the ad-
vantage from taxing sock of non-res-
dents TO the town in which the railroad
corporation might keep its principal of
fec.
While nothing should be done to af-
feet the validity of the law of 1854 until
a final decision is reached in the case now
pending, it may be well to consider
whether it would not he sound policy to
adopt n system of taxation which shall
be consistent in its various parts and do
equal Justice to all.
Neither the existing law, nor the pro-
posed amendment, applies to railroads
built or owned by bondholdcrs. The
holder of a bond, who may receive his
interest regularly, is not taxed, though
he is nonresident, but the nonresident
owner OF a share is to be taxed, although
the bond is practically as much part of
the railroad capital as the stock
| am unable to see any sound reason
why stockholders and bondholders in po-
session, should not stand on the same
footing IN this respect, or why railroad
corporations should be subject to diff
tercnt rule in regard to taxation from
other property holders. There can be
no doubt of your power to tax the real
property in this state owned by corpora
tions. 1t is the present rule to tax it as
such, except in the case of railroads, and
by including the real property of rail-
roads under the general rule, we should
reach alike the resident and nonresident
stock and bondholder, and work equality