The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-06-10

company not intended by the LegisIaturs 70 be
seeona that the erm: and yondions Of former acts
Company thafit ii IA be exempt IRON taxauon except
10 limited extent And ~ specified manner; h.
OF the Legislature Of the state Of New York April
York q Lake Erie through southern tier Of counties
q mat Sste ~ an hst passsa ~ s h ey we,n au
state II PENNSYLVANIA which now exists there BY sub
Company was formed with All he rights an aItno ~
ns2 conIerlsn upon me hfc hroau ~ h stSta tu1
reunsylvana by IN act in which recied mat Tor
il desirable hat the rre Railroad Company should
be located Tor distance OF about fifteen mics through
tla tns said road might DC located upon suen node
ent The company was authorized TO enter upon AM
ior the purpose Of constructing the road paying tor tic
same II the amount was agreed upon 4 not 10 be ascer'
y second act Of tue date Of March rs 1876 authority
thisty mics with the same General bowers ana uadef
tina. the company should cause 70 re grega ed and nsd
S @" 81 the s o ~ s d
that the company should annually pay into the state
he last section Of lie act provided that the stock OF
the saia company 70 an amount eani to inc cost. Of .e
yania saoad DC subject to satioa same MANNER
Se sobee sane one a. OF the o TIE case that
the whole Length o. IL, The se erSad i 400 @s' ia
and eusquenanna counties -,
of VIII this 42ls miles paru IN the year iss3 were
ss266s49 s. OF this sum Az l5Slhs-yiz Sosi 9ss 80
adjudged to be the portion taxable In Pennsylvania
under the statute imposing the tx IN question: Upon
~ the sum OF the tax Tor several
years win interesT ana expenses WAS made ne. ,r,,
road within the provisions OF the act Of 1868 be-
f a s IN e S but IS nearly al the
ces rH G usns the n right Of was through
small portion OF the territory OF Pennsyyanla which i
urtber from the details and machinery Of the act that
ouTng on The mart OF The Court The OF new
GAINS aud ~ provisions which the Legisiaure has
reduce, and which clauses and provisions
It sid are be ~ power to o, mr. rho
Erie Company not aong business IN the state in the
sense nende by tho act me answer Is woold !, :,
this company was doing business in the state In the
his construction OF a state statute by the Supreme
o GeG Is OF he Gnea i conclusive upon
us We accept ne construction o. state statues oy tne
such con,iraction We accept ana ADOPT It. athongn
Construction OF 5 similar statute OF another IN
Difference the supreme Court OF that state Ihanua
Tloga Railroad Company, 70 WALL co.. +,
Seond-We of he opinion tina the supreme Court OF
PENNSYLVANIA right IN itsconstrucuon Of the statute
Constituting together the eighth sections of
the act II enacted that every railroad COMPANY,
ness IN ts ae gd Upon whose woRs caRt nay
transported, whether BY such company or by indivii-
uais,m &c. snail be liable TO the tax ~ question
can scarcely be doubted this company is doing
gross earnings TO an amount exceeding $1,000 per
annum Tor oyer -, road Of which i9r
not limit the amount of business done or ,he
lis inability to taxstion The legal effect q The appel
road Within the limits the Of ennsy
yana aud iorywe miles only were IN ne state OF New
difficulty the MACHINERY Tor the collection o. the taA
ture tact the state at once proceeded TO and
has constantly persisted IN rs eXercse aoras strong
evidence OF its intention and Of It's understanding Of It's
effect.
40 II s n ad s and 6e Of the
tate OulY Is
Railroad v Pennsylyania. Is Wall go: Mlnot "a Rail,
tax by direct action upon at paTt o. M road %i
would attempt to lay taxation TO an eIravaesnt or o2-
presiye cAlen has not yet appeared lnt II nus exer-
portfonel the according 70 the length % the rotd
within the State is not just subject OF complaint oy the
Ihe second objection is that Of 1858 impairs tho
the ERIE Company. II has been held many tunes in
corpora,on or its property WITHIN its territory sha
be exempt from taxation shall e subject e limited
4 Cranch 64; Goruon w Appeal TAX Court Howard.
KHoop q EDWARD 5Cg Dodge y. wool,ey, is Howard,
SJl sank vs. sneliev, BlacK 40; McGee " Matthias
SIS: Home OF rriendiess vs. Rouse %aiiace 4n Wash
s sPo,a We s Is Wallace & ~ 8
Branch, 10 Wallace, 80; Humphrey vs. Pegucs, 10 wal
Tne Court has, however. in the most emphatic terms
which the urren is made must be clear ana unms
taxable he OF ne oer ar nItbes
10 taxation STATE cannot SIR itself Of mis- most esse
Language be deprived this highest attribute OF SOW
na c ,s ~ n has never been deearred
from. tested by this rule, the contention Of the appel
toto wit, in lsll BY which the Ere , Raj.
Sn9 ,aS company ~ fEacss ami run il, cars throusn
tue Of su.quenanna nothing was sad IN The act
transferred 20 that county remained there ike any
eriy subject the operation Of tie laws Of the state
The act OF sio auh9tixhs INC nanons pl VIZ roaa
reference 70 taxation BY section 4 was enacted that
Of Pike AIT Susqurhanna an accurate accsun, o. The
one once 81 Ise Raltor General aud ts after the road
should be competed y Dunkirk, or extended by any
pay annuaily into the treasury inc sum Of slto.e
oony ~ m aen paaa 10 the eo Of the Contraction
that part their road situate IN Fennsyyana shall
same manner aud a. The same rate - other similar
pany shal annually make statement of It's affairs
:. and 81 The business done upon said road during
the previous years said statement 70 contain nl aid
accurate account q ine nnmser 2, pas,enssrs amount
minerals isnserred on SAID roai east q Dunkrk and
Ne Gni IN these enacments no intmation OF inten
limit a. surrender the taxing power OF the
ports aad details AFRO required from which may De in
isrIeG that tns Lesia,s s s men thourht
proper leaving the future To provide Tor inc future
render authority possessed BY the ctae None Of
tns c1se SegsIe Nv W. W. consc}ne Inc General
powers taxation agreed % he surrendered by
Nor do We nnd in New York and Eric Railway
sao1 nsex z9 a ana sa S So,y 10 Ibis Contraction Il
was there ned merely the state mad IMPOSED tax
upon the The to the extent OF tne cost
of that state that Implied an exemption
IRON me yn a SSi 10 hold ohr~se Woa be 70
subject the same nrnparty double taxation. which II
cannot supposed intended. The remarks OF STR
Justice Woodward in erie galway vs. commonwealth
u6 r. r. smith s4 give full explanation Of the mean
Ing OF the language employed IN that case.
In the Commonwealth ra>tOn bank 40 Pa Stat
r f5I cited approved in IS wall, I'D. IL held
that the desgation ia The charter Of hc bank % the
payment al IA xes It's dividends at fixed
mere designation then 10 be paid. and did not
Affect the power impose other greater taxes The
decisions courts OF Pennsylvunla quite
in harmony with on this subject
None % the objections well taken, and the ludg-
mcnt must be affirmed.
grOE AND LEATHER BANK CASE
No. 2Ig. Cnares y. H0tchklss, appellant, vs..
The National shoe ana Leather BANK New York
city and the Tradesmen's National Bank-Appeal
from the circuit Court for the southern District or
New York.-Mr. Justice Flelu delivered the opin-
ION OF the Court IN substance, tnus:-
In May 1863 the Milwaukee AMI 81 Paul Rail-
way Company issued coupon bonds by eacn