Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1870-03-17
rho rnxatiOn of Railroads.
, ,r..,rr FROM HON. s. NJ. DoRH'

o,,,,. orAl Ruaoad ILraM--Hy dear
| ...-Tlal hoped tbat there might 20 nol
,.. .o,orenl necessity OF occupying
.rooe TO place myself right on the
ion of taxttion. But your editorial
Monday, md your comments on my
.- il. YOUR Wednesdays Issue must DO
nv apology for referring to this subject
nee more.
lam obliged to you for the suggestions
~. have Jailed 10 comprehend Sir.
....,op'a article 1t seems that my desire
/ Ma li.f as possible, has misled you and
.i,bly other readers of your paper.
r~,t left in my letter to be inferred
d, NV statements / will now try to exc
Lain, q
Mr. Dunton claims that part 2, sec. o.
.-, ~ of the General Statutes exempts
road property. 1t is in these words:
An real and personal estate, granted,
oo.t,red. or used for public, pious, or
.,r;nble uses, shall be exempt from tax
,.,, and shall not be set in the list"
a. have been accustomed to regard this
,omption as only including churches,
.1i houses, highways, church and
to5l lots, sc. This claim was so en-
,,oly new, and at the same time so sweep
o, in tits disposition of the whole ques-
aon Of taxing railroad property in the
.wns, that it seemed only necessary for
me- to refer to the current history of legis-
atom on this subject, where such claim
nobt to have been made to refute it.
There is no railroad charter in our
State that has a clause exempting it from
nxstion, excepting the Vermont Central;
and said in reference to this, that it was
Inserted because it would be liable to tax
atom without it. had never seen the
niuion of the court in the case of the
Vermont Central against Burlington, l
ind on examination that the opinion of
he court is based on the cypress er0n1p-
ya from taxation, and not on the fact, as
Mr. Dunton would have Us believe, that
i. was property appropriated to public,
Nous or charitable use" For the court
ypressly say, "That it was probably tbs
I,5astderdti0n" as well as the additional
one that the amount paid in taxes would
garoaso the sum to 10 paid by the State
"A ,aso they should become the purchasers
the road that induced tie Legislature to
uDt this property from tdratton. The
.art rocites all the essential provisions
tho Vermont Central charter-jts ex-
.ra., exemption from taxation-the right
II the State to purchase its property
within q given time, The amount it must
,.y. etc, and then says that it is in 3ela-
.r.O rAuyteTS Of this character, and the
..b constructed under them that they
them not liable to taxation, ETC., etc.
1s corporation held their property in
N 9e measure as a trust from tie State, and
policy Of imposing taxes, to be paid
Nj ak with ten per cent. interest, was not
h accordauce with proverbial Yankee
Airacter
lheye not seen the case of The Inhsbit-
au Of WORCESTER against the Western
1 Rdlroad, but canolude that it is a
\ ,arter analogous to this Vermont Central
All the other cases referred % by the
,,nrt have, like the Vermont Central,
.xprssa exemptions in their charters.
|Noither the Rutland Railroad the Ben
,1gton & Rutlqnd, nor the Rutland Il
Washington Railroad charters, as | under
I'D them, have any express exemption
n 10 taxation, nor il the right reserved to
n be State to purohase their property The
.asoning of the court d63s not therefore
apply to them, because the court says that
i IN relltion 10 charters Of this character,
,ba Vermont Central) and tie roads con-
ly7lrt, d lmdey them that the exemption ap-
rHo.
believe it is a rule of law that nothing
t.n be done indirectly which it would be
geel to do directly, and If railroads,
vi.h all their property, are exempt from
cation because it is property granted,
,.,pestered or used Cor public, pious or
t,rits5lo uses" how iuGomprehensible is
action of our legislature in debating
3avs and weeks and finally passing a
.g taxing all the stockholders in the
4aro,d corporations of our State J.! The
ln. Of stages between Rutland and
W.,l.tock il used for conveying mails,
.seagrs and freight. They do the
mc,errice in less degree, that the
railroads do, and in like less degree, the
ivperty is used for public uses. If Mr..
Dnnton's Interpretation of the statute is
A1rroct, these coaches, and horses and
A roperty, are exempt from taxation. Who
yyr il the lucky owner of this property,
will assert his exemption, and defy the
sters.
In YOUR review of the law, in your
,,no Of Monday. March 18th, you quote
he law of 1851 as authority. If L am
not mistaken, this law was repealed by
The general statutes of 1869. The law of
1854, to which you also refer, and parts OF
which you quote, was resisted by those
Interested in the payment of taxes under
it. because it was claimed that this specific
tax imposed upon this class of property
'is taxing it in a manner dIderen& from
etat the other property Of the State a0aS
.leG, ,oas unconstitutional. The recent
lecision of the Supreme Court of the
Inited States eubstantiated this claim"
have not the report Of the case before me,
but quote from the only report of it that l
have seen. Your view of the Jaw rests
upon these two acts. Have your aFgu-
nents any force in view Of these facts (
You deny the right of taxing corp"r 'tion
property, separate from its representative
stock. Is it not true, that our town taxes
the real and personal property of the Rut-
and Marble Company, represented by
|apital stock of 100000? Do we not
Ak the Sutherland Falls Marble Com.
psny's real and personal property, repre-
ssuted by capital Stock of $300,O002 Is
the right Of the town so to tas ever ques-