The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-05-27


the requirement in the schedule to be re-
turned 70. the Auditor Of State of a state
ment or the amount OF capital sSYck and
indebtedness. We do not think That the
matters referred to justify any such impu-
tatfon. 1t is not to be assumed that State
co1templates s1t; ia the taxation Of any property
utes are intended to operate otherwise than
upon the persons and property within the
ton of tax act should in terms declare
the scope Of It's territorial portion. Before
any statute will be held TO intend 10 reach
outside property the language expressing
which refers to the matter of railroad
track in terms provides that the value OF
In the several counties, townships. cities
towns in proportion that the length of the
main track in such county, township. city
or town bears to the whole length of the
road in this State, except the value Of the
side. or second, track, and all the turn
outs. and all station houses. depots, ma
chine shops or other buildings belonging
to the road shall be taxed in the county,
township. city or town In which the same
are located. And while Section s0 treating
Of rolling stock, does not repeat this ex-
press limitation, yet it is manfestly inn.
piled, not merely from its following imme-
eral scope of the act. but also from the
schedule required to be returned to the Au-
ditor of State. the first and second clauses
or which are as follows:
"First-Of the property denominated
railroad track, giving the length of the
main and side or second tracks and turn
outs. and showing the proportions In each
State.
'Second-The rolling stock whether
owned or hired. giving the length of the
main track in each county, and the entire
length OF the road in this State.
simply TO reach the property of the
railroad within the State, and these pro-
smpy tn tn an the &
ferent counties, townships towns, cities,
etc. within the State. No intent to the con-
requiring the corporation to file a state
ment of it's total stock and indebted
testimony for farla thSt o obe conndere 5en Of
in determining the value of that portion of
the, property within the State. The stock
W ty. AS said by Mr.. Justice Miller in State
railroad tax cases page 6O5), When you
have ascertained the current cash value
of the whole funded debt, and the. current
cash value Of the entire number of shares,
you have, by the action of those who,
above all others, can best estimate IT., as
certained the true value of the road, all Its
chises; for these are all represented by the
value of its bonded debt and Of the shares
of its capital stock
A TENNESSEE DECISION.
'In Franklin County VS.. Railroad Com
pany, Q2 Lea, 52l, 5S9), the Supreme Court
of Tennessee in a well considered opinion,
which was quoted with approval by this
court in Columbus Southern Railway
sus Wright, Q51 r. S., 470, 479), thus re-
ferred to the means of ascertaining the
value of railroad track: The value of
the roadway at any given time is not the
original cost. nor fortiori, it's ultimate
cost after years of expenditure in repairs
and improvements. On the other hand, its
value cannot be determined by ascertain
ing the value of the land included in the
roadway assessed at the market price of
adjacent lands, and adding the value of
cross ties, rails and spikes. The value OF
the land depends largely upon the use TO
which it can be put, and the character of
the improvements upon it. The assessable
value. for taxation, of a railroad track can
only be determined by looking at the ele-
ments on which the financial condition of
the company depends, its traffic, as evil
denced by the rolling stock and gross earn
ingS in connection with its capital stock.
No local estimate of the fraction in one
county of railroad track running through
several counties can be based upon sufh-
cient data TO make IL at all reliable, un-
less, indeed, the local assessors are fur
niShed with the means of estimating the
whole road Counsel sought, in argument,
to narrow the meaning of the words, rail-
road track and rolling stock as though
the two did not include the entire railroad
property, but evidently the Supreme Court
of the State construed. and, as feFthink.
properly, the two terms as embracing all
which goes TO make up what is strictly the
railroad property.
.'By Section 8 of the act it is provided
that all property in the State shall be sub
ject to taxation unless expressly exempt
ed. BY Section 4, that when the prop
erty of a corporation is taxed to the cor
poration the shares held by individuals
shall not be subject to taxation. There is
in terms no exemption of any railroad
property, or any part thereof and there
is no provision of the tax law reaching
that which is strictly railroad property,
except as embraced within the two terms
railroad track and rolling stock. Hence
ii evidently was assumed by the Supreme
Court, though the matter Is not discussed
in the opinion. that by these two descrip--
tive terms the Legislature, carrying out
the declared purpose of subjecting al
property within the State to taxation. not
the property owned or used by the rail-
road companies in the operation of their
roads. and which may fairly be called
railroad property And when the statute
provides that such property shall be
sessed at it's true cash value 1T means
to require that it shall be assessed at the
value which IL has, as used, and by rea-
son of its use.
FAIR MODE OF DIVISION
"When road runs through two States it
is as seen, helpful in determining the value
of tat part within one State to know the
value OF the road as a whole, 1t is not
stated in this statute that when the value
of a road running in two States is ascer-
tanned the value of that within the State of
Indiana shall be determined absolutely by
dividing the gross value upon mileage
basis, but only that the total amount of
stock and indebtedness shall be presented
for consideration by the State board Never
theless, it Is ordinarily true that when
railroad consists of a single continuous line
the value of one part is fairly estimated
by taking that part of the value Of the en-.
tire road which is measured by the pro-
portion of the length of the particular part
to that of the whole road
This mode of division has been recog-
nized by this court several times as emf
nently fair Thus. i'm State railroad tax
cases. on page COS, it was said: 1T may
well be doubted whether any better mode
of determining the value of that portion
of the track within any one county has
been devised than to ascertain the value
of the whole road. and apportion the value
within the county by Its relative length to
the whole And again, on page Gil: This
where the road of a corporation ran
through different States, that tax upon
the income or franchise OF the road was
properly apportoned by taking the whole
income or value of the franchise and the
length of the road within each State, as
the basis of taxation. (The Delaware
railroad tax case. Is Wall, 206; Erie Railway
Company VS.. Pennsylvania, Il Wall, 1922
The mileage basis of apportionment was
also sustained in Western Union Telegraph
Company VS.. Massachusetts, Q25, u. s., 500
Pullman Palace Car Company VS.. Penn
sylvania nl, U. S.. 49,; Maine VS.. Grand
c. & c. Railroad Company VS.. Gibbes Q42,
u. s., 3S6); Columbus Southern Railway
Company VS.. Wright Q51, U. s., 470.)
eft is true there may be exceptional