New-York tribune., 1886-02-22
PRICE THREE CENTS.
NEW JERSEY RAILROAD TAX.
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

TRENTON n j., Feb 21.-The railroad tax
decision of the Supreme Court branch on Thursday
last has thrown the people Of the State into chaos OK
uncertainty much Of which is DUE It to be feared to
| a misunderstanding OF the ISSUE There is vexatous
discussion and difficult work ahead but the embarrass.
mens less serious than indiscreet utteranees
have led many TO believe. and the problem OF the tax
question open to an easier solution at present than 10
was when the subject considered in the Legislature
two years ago.
The history OF the difficulty back the
srructioD OF the first railroads In NewJersey, yfour
when the Legislature granted the charters OF
the original companies. These charters contained
clauses limiting the amount OF taxation and the
aeement Of the enterprise seemed demand liberal
terms. The concessions were however understood by
legislators OF the day and they advocated and
opposed with the earnestDess that mas marked
more recent legislation the subject Soon after the
granting Of the first charter others voted, and
til 1873 every railroad company constructing line In
the first obtained the consent Of the Legislature
and they received privileges Of widely varying nature
The system OF taxation from the first by the COM
pany to the State direct and the tax question was
naturally subordinate or merely incidental. Subse-
auenty gained in Importance as railroad property
increased In value and at length the State made an at
tempt change the rate The companies then set up
the claim regulations OF the charters concern
ing formed contract between the State and
each company, and appeal taken to the courts
The courts sustained the STATE and the case
at ISSUE that OF the Morris and Essex Railroad Com
pany carried to the supreme Court OF tho United
states Subsequently the charters OF the united rail-
roads we're subjected to the legal test There are
differing views to the manner in which these cases
we're presented to the National tribunal but however
that may be, the court decided that the clause
In reference TO the taxes was in the nature OK
O contract between the State and the companies, and
could not be changed without mpairng the validity OF
contract and violating the faith Of the State The opin
fad Law nndt
dropped out OF discussion Tor the time.
the year 1878 the agitation for competing lines OF
railroad feeling against the old "head tax FORM
ery imposed upon each passenger crossing the State
and a variety OF other causes some OF ancient origin
and others recent, resulted in popular demand
for some general statute governing the construction or
railroads The Legislature had been corrupted by the
incessant struggle obtain railroad charters and the
existing companies became exhausted In their attempts
to defeat such legislation. The Pennsylvania Railroad
Company was taking control Of the united railroads.
and with aid OF tna company and in obedience 10
loud popular demand general railroad law OF 1873
was passed II regulated the construction OF raroaos IN
liberal manner. and 1t provided for an
of ouehaf OF per cent the cost OF the railroads
The companies paid some local taxes on property
not used for railroad purposes They carefully retained.
however all the rights they had possessed in their
charters in the OF taxation. so far as their legal
advisers were able although 1t is question now with
some whether they did or did not succeed III Withhold
tnued system OF paying By far the greater part Oh
the taxes tue state and In 1876 the amonat na De
come sufficient the expenses Of the state govern
ment In 1873 the amended constitution was adopted,
form with the constitution that the tax should he upoa
The true value. Other alterations were also MADE ana
NV rms time the railroad tax had become problem.
and difficult one solve But through ALL the system
| OF paying to the state was retained a. A., - a..
Five six years ago there was new agtaton on tno
question. Each enactment OF te pnss & m bd d
Important in 1869 thatof 1873 ana tnsI o, haa
been preceded 10y public discussion OF more OF iess
heated and had been followed by aeoresponu-
ing b In each the difficulty had been the poss pat
OF the rrepealable charters oy some ol te
aud the 1npossiOllty OF treating ~. AZ siAe nng
constitutional amendments OF 1879 requiring genera
ey,atlon aud f0f bidding private and special enact
me ns In plain and conclusive terms as well as prOvd-
Ing for the assessment OF property by general laws
uniform rules ;alue. Increased the embarras-
OF egiting upon the subject RE revs1 in pt sno
city where vast improvements had Oeeh made Dy tno
railroad companies and the cry came from tDence thN
the cys expenses increased by the rai roads ~hle
the latter Withdrawing properly from the assess
ment st purchasing for railroad uses thus making
A. liable 10 state assessment alone Opposing assertions
as to the Ot this alleged wrong we're haue lhen
Ludlow In 1888 the election OF sninonopoly mem
Oers to Legislature. snd the campaign OF tue same
iorndabc proportions. made It evident that the spora,
die and unsuccessful attempts to change the raroad
law, which had been maze rom ne 70 .i'nr, @
soon be- oyershadOwed by more serious anu eoh-
cornoraons up 10 that time had certainly never been
dl,ugushng tr lit Ot his career b0ssomel out IN te
campaigu as terveut advocate OF equal taKatlon,
and Ir Republicans had from tho first taken position
that change IN the corporation TAX Ia" muS'o 10
The session of 1854 was only few hours old when
senator Criggs (Rep) Introduced resolution FORA
sneci committee on the subject OF corporation taxation
and men OF both parties made haste III tue popular
movement The discussion and agitation continued
the session aud when the Legislature ad-
journed. there was oiI' r1rnn.es end one
for taxing the railroad companies on a
Comparatively novel basis. The latter bill was the re-
Ill .Ui, ~ rreat struggle and finally passed repre-
soned some hing of the opinions on tax laws OF enoe
trsgs and his Republican assoGis s o the E,snes and
arguments OF distinguished counsel OF tue raloaa
companies and good deal of what previous leglslauOn
charters and the tradition tha the etate
should derive its revenue IRON n ar,
0urathed to legislators of the day Ine aenp "asto
dodge tho constitutional objections, whlcn were wel
nigh innulueraoe. The law went into Gnect IN ApEI'
1854 and the first payments were due IN january 1850
Tho railroad companies paid pStDs SI snd Es,ex n esS s
immediately began contest the Norrs @ n,u $50 -, @ az
nearance To rights The decision was reached
uncoustituiiona ana void. a., , a., MA.
The court was composed OF only three OF tue hine n
orr eases but the that OF the whoe conrt
In law though this does not aleet tne ,isn. o. e m ,n
nainng Judges to sit IN review OF tae case III tne
Court OF Errors aud Appeals OF which tne 3dPreMe ne
Court judges are memTT ne IN peprV all bscaEe no
one had seemed 10 anticipate the lnyaillatlon Vi sno
entire act concerning railroad taxes Inc asIonlsheI.
- shen the nature OF the opinion became clearly
c,mprehensble to The lawyers and was uah-laV"u 70
eIomir il was found that the stumblins-boek OF
legislative discussion had proved OF no serious tn5
The doubtful franchise tax, for Instance, was
and The method OF assessing by state Board OF ASSESS
also upheld while the asgeu eapn1 20 indi
cate that II the court admitted that they we're rlepea
ehs n aid not consider the Objectionable tax exemptions
san,ed,ahie Rnt having sustained the legislature
,hrniSh Thsss morasses of constitutional aud legal Ih
ni, ,he cnurt struck into line OF Thought wheh hau
comparatlyely little attention but whch re-
I'm the collapse law so far as tnese uuges
were concerned They followed the logic OF JUSTICE
Etelds decision in famous san Maleo decIso 70 ITO
conclusIon ana decided in effect that the OF
Sn aingle class OF corporations for slate revenue
SSicn had been followed for half century ia New
.rsay I'm one form or another was not equal TAXATION:
nal xation there must he. The court affirmed
Inst the Legislature could not impose this tax on t6ese
nny more than IL could tax exclusively tne
xsnd for agroutnre, the city or Trenton could
i'nnose tax for all its municipal expenses upon tho
here common burthon. the court declared,
nns he placed all the same kinds OF property uuuer
sImia conditions, no Ratter by whom such property
NAV be used or owned. ,,. -. ,. H.. ,h.
the decision the court Is subject TO review Dy t9s
Court OF Errors and Appeals OF the judges VINO woua
-. nniaion aIY arD