Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1874-11-25

land Z only occupied by the road, and ia case the
road is discontinued revcrts 10 the original mo-
lnetor, the same as public highway The farms
through which railroads pass are not set In the
list at less valuation than they were before the
roads wcio laid through them and 50 no real
estate Is taken ont Of the grand list lie also OBJ
lcctcd To the specific valuation OF 81 0DO per mile
II We are to ASSESS II at all we should have IL an
praised like all other real estate lie said the
tax proposed by the committee VI $50 per mile is
not subject to the claim Of unconstitutioualny
as set up 10y the gentleman from Mcndon NJ it il
% mN levied alike upon all that class of property
ih this state We must not tax these railroads
tuu heavily II We do, We shall prevent the selling
oi the bonds Of those roads not vet completed and
should be the policy of tho state to encourage the
Investment Of money in our roads, lie would
laNof tax payable direct to the state treasury.
and not leave 1t subject 10 the local tax collector.
II there is any constitutional objection to the tax.
alton, let the state test H. There are various sys-
tens adopted IN several states and It appeared to
the committee that the proposition of the commit
tee is the simplest and best, and the one that the
state should adopt In most OF the sites the d.
rect state tax has been adopted and Il was found
much more satisfactory than any other plan
Mr. LADp, Of Alburgh, said this was q measure
involving the taxation Of 10000 600 Of property
ln the state, heretofore exempt from taxation
lt appears that the owners and managers Of these
runds have asscutod that the profits should be
taxed rs matter of right and the only question
WAS what was right The roads Of which Gov.
smith has the management run one hundred and
twenty miles In New York and pay tax of
$1,000 in Connecticut they pay $1,000 on
sixty-nne miles Of road. In New Hampshire they
faY rhuOO on twcnty-siX miles In Massachusetts
they pay 81, 900 on thirty-nine miles Of road In
Canada they pay 5000 on sixty miles Of
road. The tax a. proposed by the committee
was preferable To the amendment proposed by tho
gentleman from Meudou unless the lattcr uroto-
suon could be modified 10 a. 10 fix the maximum
valuation at $40 ZOO pc mile instead Of 5000
Mr. MINsON, Of Manchester, said there was
no difference Of opinion among the committee ~
TO the prOpriety Of taxing railroad property. All
were agreed that il should be taxed the question
was how shall IL best be done One system fixes
specific tax un each mile " the road bed OF the
roads and the other sets all the property Of rail-
road corporations IN the grand lists Of the towns.
It is for this House 10 decide which system they
prefer. and the tirst vote of the House should be
upon a choice between the two. lie preferred The
system which puts railroad property into the list
Tor municipal taxation as other property b. taxed
ii the House are not satisfied with the amend
mcnt to The amendment wc can raise the proposed
limit % valuation The amendment only fixes
q maximum limit at which 1t shall hc listed and
thc listers can appuisc 10 as much lower a. they
please The only ONES tu raise the constitutional
objections atc Che towns II they see No to list the
property at higher rate than i- named la this bill
and test the question as To the constituOnalty Of
the limit the railroad managers have no reason to
complain OF raise the question lie preferred the
provisions of the amendment TO the amendment
H- wufe in clns0nanco with thc general listing of
I.nHf.tr lH thc State
.f HYDE. of ,a-tcou uas Boo nf.. ot
n.l Hcut pnH.od ly 3d. O'
tl-. IaI.u.auoU- Dc i- conceded IIuI .uH
iu t tls rdiuad property. and lc I .eiI.l
WHi 10 should bc sotiu tllc list like utlcr uIuUcfi,
Mir coon of Mcudun, said that ho believed
ihc first. third, aud fourth and NTH sections of
his amendment were all right. bnt he did not like
thc second section. a. that limited the valuation
tu - upu per mile. when It * conceded that the
property i- worth at least $4,000 per mile. lie
would prefer the valuation, A. suggested by Gov
eiuor iago ol Eutand. before the committee. Of
5000 per mile being about one-fourh the yalua-
tiun of the property lie preferred tho method Of
taxation be proposed, To the specific tax as en-
ahin- towns o. help pay of their railroad bonds.
lle aas, ut first, disposed 10 look with suspicion
upon tnc proposition n tle committee as coming
FROM the railroads Themselves but perhaps there
was uo need of any fears lie would be satisfied
with Do 10 DO should Doe thought the best method
Mr DAVIS. OF st. Ahaus, favored the PROPOSE
ton a- submitted hy The committee as being
nearer tn equality Railroad property Is state
property. and should not bee taxed for the benefit
oi amy localities hut directly for the benefit Of the
state ile could see no constitutional objection
tu The proposition of the committee. ms il taxes an
that cits, Of property equally and alike. There
never was amy question of cOnstitutunality, when
the whole Of our railroad property was LETT out Of
The list noW ID We fix an equal specific tax, we
gain $50 much and noquestou o. consiitutiOnalty
lm Doe raised Railroad property Is state prop
c.tg. aud not n any sense. any part Of IT, local
as we can not sell, VI take ont, any one mile from
"a road without injury 90 the whole road The
holdings also are q part of the road. aud are nee
essiry iof IT, complete working. lie preferred
the plan Of The committee To that proposed by
Mr. Cook claiming that the specific tax was just
10 all the towns of the state We must be just to
tie railroads, and not put upon them burdens
thcy are not able to bear The roads must derive
revenue enough from some source, 10 pay their
running expenses and pay these taxes If we inn
pose taxes heavier than they arc able 10 pay un-
der their present rates for passenger and freight
tariffs. the roads must increase these rates To
meet the increased burdens. He very much pre-
ierFed the specific tax as proposed by the commit
tee as being moro just and equitable 10 the ruads,
and better for the state
ON motion Of Mr.. BARTHOLOMEW, Of Benson,
adjourned.