Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1875-05-01
AND TAXES.

U8yIuCut " ulH0s
RAILROADS AND TAXES.
Tho Supreme Court of Nevada has
just rendered two important decisions
on the subject of the taxation of rail-
roads. The Central Pacific Railroad
Company has always insisted that the
officers of that corporation are the
sole judges of the valuation Of its
property, and whenever a county as
SCISSOR in any county Of this State has
valued it at a greater sum than six
thousand dollars per mile the company
has not only refused to pay its taxes
but has sought to defeat their payment;
first, through the medium Of county
officials, then by legislative action,
and finally by the legal skill of their
attorneys in the courts. The civil
suits known as the Washoe County
Tax Cases have at last been decided
In favor of the State and against the
Central Pacific Railroad Company.
Afer q long and tedious fight of five
years, conducted on behalf of the State
by Controller Hobart, late Attorney
General Buckner and Hon. r. NJ.
Clarke, our Supreme Court has finally
held, in the cases referred to, that a
railroad company has no more immu-
mites than a private citizen, and that
tho value of its property can and
ought to be estimated and determined
by the officers of the State and county
and not by the officers of the corpora
ton.
The opinions in these tax cases were
written by Judge w. Nj. Beatty, and
reflect great credit on him as a lawyer
and jurist.
We will briefly Gull the principal
points decided by the Supreme Court,
although We can hardly do justice to
the opinions in the short space we will
take:
The Court among other things holds,
frst-That the Central Pacific Rail-
road is subject to State taxation,
following the Supreme Court of the
United States on this point. Second
1t is only necessary for a County AS
SCISSOR to make an accurate and peril
nent description of the land assessed,
90 far as the owner Is concerned, in
order to enable him to ascertain from
the assessment roll itself that the tax
charged against him has been assessed
on his land, and not upon that of a
stranger; and the failure of the Asses
sor to comply with the requirements Of
the statute does not defeat the collec-
ton Of the tax, unless the taxpayer has
been injured by such failure, and then
only to the extent he has been injured:
and it Is q question for a jury to de-
eide, under the instructions Of the
Court, whether the description is in
substantial compliance with the law.
In other words, the Court declares that
the provisions Of the Revenue act are
merely directing, and that the old
common law rule Of strict compliance
with all the terms of the statute is not
applicable. Third - Railroads, like
other property, should be assessed at
their cash value. "The cash value of a
railroad, like that of a bar of iron, is
measured by the amount of cash re-
quired to procure it, provided its util-
ity is commensurate with its cost; and
the amount of cash required to pro-
sure a railroad is the necessary cost of
It's construction, by which is to be I'M
derstood not what it may actually have
cost II unskillfully laid out or extrav-
agantly managed or constructed, but
what, at the date Of the valuation, it
would necessarily cost to replace it
with another just as good and as well
adapted to the use for which it was de-
signed. Presuming, as we may, that a
railroad will not be built unless there
are good reasons to believe that its
utility will be equal to its necessary
cost, and that its construction will not
be made to cost more than Is necessary,
. railroad is prima facie worth its &C.
tual cost, making due allowance for
the necessary deterioration or destrue-
ton Of material by use. To determine
the value Of q railroad, then, the very
first inquiry is as to its actual cost.
That, prima facie, is its value. But, il
1t appears that the actual cost was in
excess Of tho necessary cost, the nee
essary cost Is the proper standard. II
It further appears that the net income
Of the road does not amount to cur
rent rates OF interest on its necessary
cost, and is not likely to do SO; or II
the business Of the road is likely to be
destroyed or impaired by competition
or other cause; or, in short, if the
utility Of the road Is not equal to its
cost, then its value is less than its cost,