The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-04-26
4E
TAXATION
Jersey City Citizens Urge
the Legislature to Pass
M'EWan's Bill.
PROVISIONS
Counsellor Allen Of the Erie OPP
poses the Measure-The Argu-
ments Pro and Con.
Special to the Jersey city Meas.


TRENTON, April 26, 1S94.-The Hous Com
mittee on Railroads and Canals gave a hear
ilg yesterday afternoon on Mr.. McEwan's
bill, which amends the general railroad law
SO that the property of railroads b De
taxed at the same rates as the property OF
individuals. Mr.. James s. Allen, one OF the
attorneys of the Erie Railroad, was the first
speaker. He said it would be an act of bad
faith p the part of the State to pass the
bill. Four-fifths of the railroads in the State
were chartered under special acts which
gave them certain ~immunities from taxation,
which they surrendered when the general
railroad law of 1884 was passed. Therefore,
he claimed an act of bad faith upon the
part of the State to compel the roads to come
in now and pay at the local rates.
That law had worked well for the State
but bad for the roads, as they paid ten times
as much as they did before 1884. The law
provided for the assessment OF franchise,
which greatly increases the value of the
roads. For instance, that part of the Erie
system which extended from Pavonia ferry
to the tunnel was assessed at the rate OF
81. OOO.O 900 q mile. II the law under con-
sideration was passed the franchise could
not be taxed, which would reduce the as
sessed value of the same property to some
thing over $500, 900. From this Mr.. Allen
concluded that the companies paid on q
much higher valuation than they would
under the proposed law, and they were
really paying $1.35 or LAO, instead OF l per
cent. He claimed that railroad property In
certain localities was assessed much higher
than that of individuals.
Mr.. M. j. Currie denied this and cited the
oao ~ %1o C~aorxi1la cfcf{On 1nrOr1dFtV
which was assessed at $500 a lot, while prop
erty next to it was assessed at $500.
Mr.. Allen continuing said be could not see
why the Legislature could not let well enough
alone and let the old law stand. He spoke
of the great benefit which Jersey City had
derived from railroads.
Mr.. F~LEMMING'S ARGUMENT.
Mr.. James Flemming next spoke. He said
that owing to the short notice he was not as
well prepared as BIZ would like to be. He
ridiculed Mr.. Aliens remarks about the
right which the Erie had given up to come
under the law of 1884. The Erie never had
any right to surrender. 1t was a foreign
corporation which had come into Jersey City
for the purpose of finding a terminus. The
Erie gained by the general law and n OF
the most active men In securing the passage
of the law of 1884 was Cortland Parker,
counsel of the Erie. The railroad gave up
no privileges to come in under that law. Their
charter contained a claus which provided
that the State could take the railroads at
and the railroad surrendered their so-called
right simply to save the State from taking
those roads at cost.
Mr.. Beekman interrupted the Speaker to
ask what bill Mr.. Fleming was talking on,
and it took about ten minutes to make him
get it through his head chat the bill before
the committee was Mr.. McEwan's measure.
Mr.. Flemming claimed that If a railroad was
compelled to pay $500 and a citizen $1,000
it was discriminating against the citizen,
and was unconstitutional. The reason why
Mr.. Allen was there clamoring for the re-
tention of the law OF 1884 was because the
bulk of railroad property escaped taxation.
had ever been to Jersey City. Lorillard's
and the sugar house were worth more to
Jersey City than all the railroads.
Mr., Beekman wanted to know if those con-
Germs would be there if it were not for the
railroads, and Mr.. Flemming replied that they
would. The Sugar House came to Jersey
City to secure the water facilities which the
city afforded.
The Erie paid a heavy tax on every foot of
property in New York State, which was
lifted as soon as the road reached New Jer-
rsey, and all it paid was one-half of one per
cent. to the State. Mr.. F1emming then
showed how millions of property were taken
out of the taxable property of the city by
the railroads every year, and paid only one
half of one per cent. to the State. Mr.. Flem-
ming closed with an appeal for a constitu-
tional amendment and equal taxation
Mr.. Allen again addressed the committee,
and said that if the Legislature should at
tempt to repeal the law of 1884 the railroads
would not pay as large an amount of taxes,
but they would pay more to the different To-
~calities.
Mr.. MEwAN's EXPLANATION.
Mr.. McEwan explained that his bill pro-
vided that the franchise tax and the tax for
main stems should Ego the State. and that
the tax on the other property should go to
the locality in which it is located. This. he
believed. should be done, as the localities
have all the burden Of furnishing fire and
police protection.
Humphrey w. Carr spoke of the many
roads in Hudson County, which were never
feeders to other roads. and which escaped
local taxation, although they were constant
" taking property out of the local taxa
ton. This they did by the fiction OF being
main stems.
Mr.. Joseph A. Dear, who followed, said
that at the valuation given by State Tax
Board, the railroads owned $500, 900, 900
worth of property in the State, upon which
they paid only 81 100000 taxes, He told of
the West Shore road which owned
property in this State valued at 81, 700, 1000,
upon which it paid taxes at the rate of one
half Of one per cent. The am road owned
in New York property worth $40, 1000 900,
upon which it paid taxes at full local rates.
That was the manner, Mr.. Dear said, in
which railroads were taxed In almost every
other State In the Union. The committee
then adjourned.
The Jersey City people who attended the
hearing beside those who spoke were Judge
McGrath, M. j. Currie and Alderman Hoos.