New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1879-07-29

ARGUMENT on THE NOTION TO PERPEIUALLf hN-
JOIN THE CITY FROM PROCEEDING AGAINST HE
COMPANY.
Arguments were heard yesterday afternoon
before Justice Potter in Supreme Court, Chambers III
In, case of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company against
tho city, on the order to show why the h)uhctloh ie
straipipg the city from proceeding 10 collect inc A
alleged 90 be due the city from the company shouid NOT
DO made permanent temporary Injunction was
granted last Thursday which modified ana supse
ouenty rearirmed by Justice Potter on Friday Inc
litigation is In regard to a claim oil ABOUT @loo'o'o
which includes the principal and interest vi "N'o "
eaed 10 be the balance due the city by the Pacnc "
Company for the year 1874 The complaint npon "nou
tho Injunction was granted alleged that the tax Tor ta
year was illegal because the assessment rolls "ere ho'
sworn 20 by the Tax Comm ssioners.
Tn tho arguments yesterday eXJudge Albert
'Cardozo and Edward Lauterbach appeared Tor the
steamship company and Assistant Corporation COnsc'
setson for the city. After Mr. StetsOn had saId th's
the discussion would be restricted to the law In the case
Mr. Iauterbach read the main points OF tho oohpl''n'
OH which the injunction had been granted ana Wheh
were published in Saturdays TRIBUNE in fnL ln"t
the rolls were not TO was not romarkaDe' sad
Mr. Iautsrbach when reflects that they 1.-THE Tax
Commssionersl may have been short OF Pacihc MAIL
whether they were not we don't know"
Mr. Cardozo said 81 confess / hardly know what 70
say IN opening Our stands confessed by the other
aide IN their affidavit. The Revised Statutes provide
that when the assessors have completed the roll they
must make oath before a Justice. Now II stands con-
tossed that 1874 the roll not verified under OATH
by the Tax Commissioners OF by the Deputy lax Com
Mr. steson for the city, then said. This is AS amaz-
ing ease a. ever came 10 notice. am amazed AZ
The procedure and conduct OF the company toward toe
cy and amazed at the impulatOn winch has been cast
thai the city officers who levied this tax were snort o.
Pacific Mail stock. suppose that TINS tax was law az
All others have been If the time even comes wbeu The
history of this company j. written u VII pe seen tht
ito only connection with the STATE National author
ties has purpose either OF eYadng taxes or
OF obtaining subsidies IL has claimed that because It's
ships sail into Francisco they cannot DO taxed In
New YORK. and these gentlemen come before TINS
Court after proracted litigation. in which they have
nv oGcers VINO were short OF the stock Of the com
Uany" Mr. stetson then took up the legal aspects Of
the case His argument was that the law OF 1891 was
general statute applying to the state, whereas there was
local law of 1880 relating TO the assessment ana col
amended by another ec statute in 1851 This law OF
1850 required that the rolls should only be certified TO-
H. m tntaued that the laws OF 1850 and 1851 en-
tirely distinct, and should be 50 regarded The law
never required the commissioner. 10 verify Their ros
required the commissioners To give such information as
~ 'ccessarv nm regard 10 person property The pro-
caediugs at most irregular, and not defective
Reference made to the fact tnat when the company
was assessed at a valuation OF S2oOOOOOO, RatuS
Uatch vice president ard managing director, com
paned that IL excessive, and the valuation was re-
dnced to 5000 O0O ana the president OF TIE company
certified by ahdayiJ TO It, correctness Mr.. stctsOn
also claimed that the former proceedings under the VIII
OF eertorari we're bar to any action con'ricing tne
Oh aimed against the company ~ mat time Is mere
not some rule" said he against splitting causes n ac-
tion a. Al another time he said. am forced 10 admit
the truth the that men change entirely
every seven years For I'm the OF Tdeu against the
Mayor judge Albert CardOzO gave opinion a. judge
entirely different from the sentiments which eNJudge
Albert Cardozo Is advancing III this counsel"
Ho closed by referring TO the bond which the company
mad given TO secure the Judgment pending the appeal 10
me Supreme Court OF United states, ntaln-
ing tHat Il had remained unfulhled for three years
Mr. Cardozo in his reply. said that he should not
annoy his Honor by replying 10 the personalities OF the
counsel for city, He then made an elaborate arg-
mcut on legal questions involved, claiming MAJ the
General statutes which reference had Decn made ala
refer bg special section 10 NeT-fork CITY; That the
law of 1857 applying the city expressly stated u
rolls should be sworn 10; that by ihe law OF lSoJ
the Commissioners were Obliged 70 furnish Information
under oath IN regard personal property ana That the
writ OF certorar issued IN July, 1874 Two monhs
before the TAX had mItured He closed by explaining
the difference between the case Of Ihden against Inc
Mayor and the In dispute Ater Cooperation Conn
sci whitney bad touched on one point affirming lAst
tho plaintiffs trying 10 hupeach the record OF the
conrt which had charge OF tine ceftUrGn prooeelngs
Justice Potter took the papers and reserved MS dc
cisiOn.