The Sunday tatler and Jersey City express. (Jersey City, N.J.) 1883-1886, 1885-07-05
EXPLAINING THE MUz1zP1E.
Expert Harrfson's ross-Examination In
the Railroad Certorarf Case.


Expert ffarrfson's Cross-Examination In
the Railroad Certorari Case.
The cross examination Of Edlow W. Har-
rison, the expert, in the contest of the
Central Railroad Company Of New Jersey,
against the State Board Of Assessors, ap-
pealing from the assessment of 1854, was
commenced last Monday and continued on
Thursday. at the Rowland Hotel, Long
Branch. There was an array of legal talent
representing the railroad company-ex-
Chancellor Williamson, and Messrs. De-
Forest, Kaercher aud Conover being
present. Ex-Judge Hoffman, as usual,
represented the state. The cross -examin-
alton was conducted by Mr.. De Forest.
Mr.. Harrison stated in reply to Mr.. De-
Forests questions, that in making his
valuation of the Central's land he had not
taken into consideration at all the earning
capacity of the road, either present or pro-
spective, "except," Mr.. Harrison said, $50
far as regards the terminal lands, which
can be brought into use for any purpose of
business, and, as such, are worth more
than land that never can be used for any
thing whatever, but that consideration was
not especially in regard to the earning cap
hCiLy VI bu0 Otublhks lta t5kutuhl 1duuS
we valued at what they would be worth for
any business purposes requiring q large
area of land approximate to the tide waters
of the Hudson River, as shown by the
value of other lands along the Hudson
River. 'sThe point want to bring out"
continued Mr.. Harrison, sis that the value
of those other lands Is probably to very
great extent determined by their earning
capacity" Mr.. Harrison, in furtherance
of the establishment of his method of val
uation, stated that though the earning cap
acity of the Central were ten times as
great with the same plant possessed by it
on January LIST, 1884, his valuation would
remain the same. Mr.. DeForest then
made an attempt to bring out the wit
ness's idea as to the difference between
cost and value, and in answer to the law
yer's question, SIS not the cost of a piece
of property in aneighborhood, for instance,
that has been changed from a very expsn-
sive place of residence to tenement hoHse
region, what that property can be sold
for ?" replied ssFor what the property can
be sold for for the best purposes to which
it can be put under its changed condition,
and he further said that the only relation
to value of that property would have to the
cost would be the depreciation to the ex-
tent of what it would cost to alter it, in
order to make it useful in its changed con-
dition. In other words, if building were
erected as fine residence at q cost of
$4,000, say, in swell neighborhood,
which, after while, becomes tenement
neighborhood. and it would cost 50. 500 to
change that building to tenement house.
the value of that building, although it cost
$l2, 500, would be under its changed condi-
ton, worth but 81, 500. Mr.. Harrison also
said that he had not taken the value of the
securities of the road into consideration in
estimating his value. elm valuing the
franchise that was considered" he said;
"but as that was not done by myself, do
not know in what way, or how far it was
considered"
Mr.. Harrison could not conceive the
possibility, with New York on one side and
Pennsylvania on the other, of the Central
Railroad having no connections beyond
Phillipsburgh; but even conceding such to
be the fact, his valuation would not be
affected by that fact. Mr.. De Forest asked
the witness if the expense of the overhead
highway was not bur den, rather than an
element of value, to railroad company
to which he replied that it was burden in
the same sense that it is burden to man
often to eat his dinner. eff man could
get along without his dinner" said the
witness, 'she would save a good deal OF
money; but it is a necessity, in order to
make more complete man, that he should
I eat, just as it is necessity, in order to
make complete railroad, that it should be
| equipped with these overhead highway
bridges"
Mr.. Kaercher, who was in the Dinsmore
suit, and who assisted in the prosecution Of
the Molly Maguires, followed Mr.. De For
rest on Thursday last in a further searching
cross-examination of the witness 1t was
| directed mainly to the fairness of the
introduction of the multiple of 8 in the
| computation of the value of the lands
Under his lead, Mr.. Harrison said that the
| first value of the Central Railroad lands, al
measured by the value of adjoining lands
was 50, GIG, 900. The local assessors do no
| fix the tax value ct true value, but at about
| IS per cent. of true value. On that bash
the Central Railroad land, with true value
| at So, BIZ, 900, would have been assessed fol
/ tax purposes at 81, 700, 900. Mr.. Harrisoni
| first value of So. 900, with it's multipl,
| of applied, made the value 81, 848, 600.
| "Then the Central Railroad has beer
assessed" Mr.. Kaercher asked, $50
| Sc, LAS, 900 more on its land than any othel
| corporation or person owning that lanG
would have been required to pay on2"
"No," Harrison responded. "The Cen
trail pays only one-half of one per cent. OF
its value, which is very much smaller rat,
than that at which other taxpayers pay"
Mr.. Harrison's cross-examination will b,
| concluded tomorrow at the Central Rail
road offices in New York.