The Rutland weekly globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-02-06

this connection only one class of property,
namely, school property. We were sur
priscd at the remark of the very intelligent
gentleman of Brandon, reported In Satur-
days GLOBE, that, although he was oppos-
cd thereto, the burthcns of taxation of the
people would be lightcncd, il school prop
crty was taxed A moments considera-
ton would have shown him that 1t would
have made no difference either way. In |
order to pay the taxes so assessed, the |
same taxpayers would have been compcll- |
cd to pay second tax in order to raise tho |
money with which to meet the first, or
other, tax. We have referred to this, sim
ply for the purpose of showing the ncces-
sity of some exemptions and the difficulty
which surrounds the whole matter of taxa
ton. We have, moreover, taken ii as
text for the present article, the object of
which, however, is not to favor eXcmp-
tons In saying what we do, we may be
charged with inconsistency. If 500 be
it. As Professor Hopkins used to remark,
elf when you find you are wrong, YOU
have the manliness to acknowledge il, is
inconsistency, then we are inconsistent.
and we glory in it.
Some weeks ago, in one or Two Editorial
articles commenting on, and replying to,
communications Herewith published, we
stated that in our opinion, public policy
required the taxation of railroad property,
and that the time had come when it was
proper to take such course. 1t is not
necessary to rehearse the arguments with
which we cndcayOred to sustain our posi-
ton, it being sufficient to say that we still
remain of the same opinion. We believe
now, as then, that railroads should contri-
butte their proportion of taxes to support
| the government. We further stated that
we thought further legislation was not re-
CURED in order that the property of the
| several railroads of the state might be put
| in the grand list and taxes assessed there
on; and that our present laws were all
sufficient for that purpose. In this, we
| frankly confess, zee 'cere miStdken
| Through the kindness of friend, who. un-
like ourseli, has achieved reputation as
one of the most eminent lawyers of Rut-
land county, if not of western Vermont,
| but who like ourself is in favor of railroad
taxation lchea il can be Mged, we have been
furnished with certain volumes of reports
of decisions of the highest courts of our
own and neighboring states, which has de-
ciledly altered our opinion. Only month
elapses before our annual town meetings
are held, when listers are appointed whose
duty it will be to place property in the
grand list for the purposes Of taxation. II
is, therefore, important that this subject
should be fully understood, so that the
people and listers may not be led astray
and the town involved in litigation. Sc
long as there is the gravest doubt about the
right of taxation, under our present laws
it is surely the better course for Rutland tC
carefully consider the matter, and await
year for appropriate legislation, rather
than involve herself in lawsuits which
would, probably, he decided against tho
town and, in any event cause as large al
expenditure as would be derived from this
class of taxation, even, if decided in oui
favor, Having expressed the opinion thai
railroad property could be taxed under oul
present laws, and, thereby, to large ex
tent, influenced public opinion, it is due u
the public and ourself that we should give
the reasons why, in our judgment, railroad
property cannot be taxed without further
legislation.
The general statutes of Vermont (sectol
6, p. 516) reads as follows "AU tie hnd
(which have been and remain sequestercd
" for puJlic, pous or charitable uses, in thi.
= state, are hereby declared 10 be free anc
" exempt from all tares so long as they re
main to such uses" The question We
are considering turns upon the meaning OF
the words ''puJiic uses" In reference tC
railroads, these words seem to be very clear
ly defined both in Massachusetts and Yer
mont. In the case of the Inhabitants OF
Worcester VS.. the Western railroad cor
poration' Oath Metcalf, p. 56i), Chief Jus
|
opinion of the supreme court of Massachu
sets, says that the corporation ''are no
only to construct and maintain road, OF
which carriages may run, but also to pro
vide for the transportation of persons
goods and merchandise, on such railroad
such transportation of persons and goods il
the object to he accomplished and fo
this purpose they may hold lands, mater
ials, engines, cars and other things. Arti
cles so hed are appropriated TO p,tbLic use, a
incident and necessary to the object to b.
accomplished" The conclusion of tn
court, to again use the language of Chic
Justice Shaw, was that the property wa
. exempted from trrati0n, as property ap
propriated TO public use. SO in our owl
state, in the case of "the Vermont Contra
railroad company vs.. the town of Burling
ton (2Sth Vermont, 1922 the court, in con
sidcrng the general question, aside iron
the clause in their charter eXcmpting tn
company from taxation, says in rela
ton to charters of this character, and tn
roads constructed under them, we nave ha
occasion heretofore to observe that, thOug
the capital and the income belongs to in
J dviduals themselves, and are used for pr
e vate gain, yet the construction of thes
! roads is regarded as a public loorh, estaI
e LsIed not only By public authority, but 70
e puJLc use and benefit" These decision
G may not perhaps, he deemed conclusive O
! the subject, but they, certainly, show that
= under our present laws, the matter is involV
: ed in the grayest doubt Let us say her
t what we omitted to say in the proper col
e nection, that in the Massachusetts, case
? the corporation was not, by their charter
f exempt from taxation, but that the dec
t sion was based upon an exemption substar
-