The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-02-26
COMMUNICATIONS ON CURRENT
TOPICS.
The Farmers War--Equal Taxation
-Grauges--PntrOns OF 1rusbnndry.

|
system of taxation, which had prevailed in
this state since the existence Of railroads
among us and the unjust burthen of taxa
ton thus imposed upon the producing
classes. | did not undertake the discussion
of the law applicable to this subject, nor
the power Of the town without further
legislation TO impose the tax, and thus APP
| ply the remedy J had my own opinions
on that subject. somewhat fortified by such
examinations as | had been able to make of
our statutes, and the decisions of the courts
OF both Massachusetts and Vermont But
the law was not so important in my udg-
ment, as that the people should see clearly
the injustice Of the present practical cx-
cmption. II the law was found to stand in
the way of the reform there could DC no
great delay in removing the barriers. | did
quote somewhat at length from report
made to the council of ccnsors of 1869,
briefly reviewing the power OF the lcgisla-
turc. To exempt railroads from taxation. in
which it was very clearly intimatcd that
when the Legislature by special enactment
exempted theNt.Central Il. II. from taxation
it oycr-stcpped the limits of legislative
power, and tramplcd under foot the consli-
tuiional rights of the people This report
was drawn up by Mr.. Ross. one of the
most careful and painstaking LAWYERS of
oal state, who now occupies the honorable
position of one Of our Supreme Court
judges.
His opinions of course are of no impor-
lance now, as bearing on this statutory ex
emption, because the Vermont Central
charter has terminated by action of the
Legislature, and corporation succeeds to
II, in which exemption from taxation was
refused by the legislature. 1t is, how
ever TAR to presume, that if the question
was judicially before Judge Ross, he could
not hold MS You claim, that railroad prop
erty is exempt, because it is property
taken for public use"
Is railroad Gland" which has been
"scquesiered" for ''public use" within the
meaning Of our statutes? You say that
our Supreme Court have so held in the
case of "T'he Vermont Central railroad VS.
The City Of Burlington" (2sth Vt. 1922
and that this opinion is fortified by the
case Of the inhabitants Of Worcester VS.
The Western railroad corporation" (ih
Mctcalt, p. 5G4)
The duty of taxing this property seemed
TO you SO manifest, that you were pleased
to say edtorialiy in the course of the dis
cussion, in substance, that this property
ought to he placed IN the grand list at once,
and that it could be thus placed in the list,
and taxed under present statutory enact
mcnts. 1t is crcditablc to the candor and
integrity Of your Journal that you do not
hesitate TO correct an error in fact and
judgment, Us soon as discovered; ard that
that error more closely concerns the
editor than any one else, shows how cXalt-
ed is the position you would occupy in the
support and confidence Of the people. |
do not then alludc to your position with
any purpose of showing in which case YOU
were right or wrong. No one who love-
truth will question the propricty of your
course.
The power to tax railroads under exist
ing statutes is legal question. As law
yer your opinions have weight / have
written only OF the duty and justice of tax
alton. If the power is not clear, then the
remedy lies with the legislature to make it
$3.50 clear that ga way-faring man.
though fool, need not err therein" If
there is any doubt about the power of list
crs, it need not be feared that the legisla-
ture will not correct it, for it seems to me
that such representatives will be hereafter
elected as will represent the popular will,
instead Of the will of great corporations.
Twill, however, briefly allude to this power
OF taxation as it exists under present laws
and the decisions of our courts.
The first point to be considered, is the
one which lies beyond and above all stat
utes and all decisions of courts that have
yet been made 1t is held by able iurists
that no statute exempting railroad proper
ty from taxation can be legal, because it
conlraycnes the express provisions of our
constitution. This position is fortified by
the opinion of Judge Ross to which have
before alluded.
The statute cxemptng from taxation
property ''sequestered" for public use," is
as old as our state, and was made before
railroads were dreamed Of | suppose the
intention Of a law should influence its con-
struction. When it was enacted then, it
did not mean railroad property, nor that it
was ''sequestered' for public use" What
did it mean TO include then ? Clearly the
legislature intended to exempt court-houses,
school-houses and highways, and under it
they have been, and still are exempt from
taxation. In the case of the Vermont Cen |
trail vs.. the city of Burlington, you will |
admit that the question before the court |
was not, whether the Vermont Central |
railroad property, or any other railroad |
propert, was exempt, under this
statute from taxation. The opinion of the
court in that case has no force then, except |
in so far as it indicated how they might de-
eide, if the question came before them in a
proper form. May we not reasonably in
dulge the hope and belief that the pro-
gress of n quarter Of century has thrown
some light upon questions, which how
ever simple then have developed influences
and tendencies, subyersive of the rights of
the people
If the direct question of exemption were
argued now in our Supreme court, its at
tention would doubtless be called to the
latest decisions on the question, and as you
have quoted authority outside of our
courts, may'I call your attention to what
! believe is the very latest judicial determi-