The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1896-12-19

@6@y
that the Long Dock Company is reported
as earning gross $4is771.H. for the priyil-
eye ct doing which the Erie pay a rental
q $4,000, and the New York. Lake Erie
Company Hhe Wsehawken TerIninaD
earns S,sl5- IS, for which the same COM
pany pays a rental of $40, 600 See New
Y 1sSg Railroad commissioner's Report
n net earnings be taken at the average
Of BIS per cent. of gross, the average Of
all roads reporting to rhe State of New
Ignores the faet that the terminal charges
For the whole system by the method of
keeping accounts adopted by the foreign
lessee company are usually, II not in every
sum Of $l2, 5S7. 02S- is, which viii pay 3.sS
per cent. 0 n the total capital, stock and
bonds. A very feir return when it be con-
up for report. and the depression in bust
ness during he period for which the ratio
Of net to gross earnings Is taken. The
average for all railroads In the Uaited
States, as calculated from Poor's Manual,
1895, page 6, being only 2S7 per cent
The maximum addition to the pres
City and Shown IN EXHIBIT 81
amounts to only one-twentieth Of one
would reduce the percentage of net earn
ings from 1888 to asa.
From this the Commission can appre-
ciate the danger to be a~pprehended of
driving these corporations into bank
ruptcy, or forcing them to raise the rates
of freight for farm products on citizens
of this State or of reducing their divi-
bends to innocent stockholders, SO feeling
~ deplored by counsel for the Bennsyl-
Western Railroads.
We are well aware that neither earning
capacity, facility of exchange, or cost,
are them measure of the constitutional true
value by which property is to be listed
for taxation, but they are all elements to
be considered. In arriving at this value.
and in a much more Intimate sense are
proper to be considered in determining
and comparing the ratio which the CON
stltutionai true value found by the State
Board of Assessors for railroad property.
and the same value found By the local
assessors for other property, bear to the
value which the same things hold in the
open markets of the world, In order that
We may determine the ratio which these
two tax valuations have to each other.
The 7,S15 square miles, or 5,001. 600 acres,
which make up the State of New Jersey.
are valued for taxation Exclusive Of the
purposes. and the real estate which is
exempted by lawl at $6S2. 500. 06S, or at an
| average Of s1ss per acre.
OF this area at least 60 per cent, or
otVUtVV dItCS - u~4pfDQuEtlt6 pine GAR
rens, stony mountains. or salt marsh.
which have never produced more revenue
than a few loads Of irewood or salt hay
about IS per cent, or 1900, coo acres Is in
farm lands, which It is generally con
| eeded are taxed very close to full selling
price-and about 2 per cent, or 100. pN
| acres Is in city or tewn sites.
OF the D,423 acres Of Jersey City itself.
$3.50 acres are salt marsh or lands under
| water and have been c~oniscated for
l taxes about pyarV tUnnfU-dua uoars
What would be the price In open market,
| OF, say thirty millions In assessed value
Of this practically waste 50 per cent. Of
| the States area? What IS the measure
Of Its facility of sale? How would it COM
pare with the same assessed value OF
| railroad property? How would 220 millions
| Of assessed value chosen from city, subur,
ban, farm lands, pine barrens or noun
Of these classes make up the whols
ratables of real estate, compare in the
markets of the world as to salable value
with the assessed 228 millions of property
r~epfeSenting ne gateways to the trans
In the face Of these facts, counsel for
| the Delaware. Laekawanna and Western
Railroad claims that In order to reach a
falr pass Of comparison with loeal
Of the railroad companies he represents
should be. reduced from $50, GAG, ops to s11.-
! fs6. Tug -S6, or a reduction of oyer II per
cent In order to reach this result he
claims generalization of main stem BY
reason of the apnlication Of a multiple fe
the value Of the lands in the main stem
! based upon the market value of adjacent
| Landslide Of the methods taken BY the
state IN 1884 as appears BY the records In
the tax cases CT thai period to reach q
conclusion as to the Value of the con.
tfnueus highway across the State.
NO Detter answer to this argument car
&c lound tnan "a the opinion of ths
| point. sac
The first exception in this vein is thai
INSTEAD OF a~scertaining the true value al
me lands OF these companies, the Board
the sum thus settled by the humber fwr
or three, and adopted the product as The
market or true value of the property. ii
Il INSISTED by this course these officers
nase assessed these ands at two ar three
but we have failed to see either the il.
tegaAig Of injustice OF this part of the
processing; The problem IS not what land
FOR agricultural or building purposes Is
worth, but what a narrow strip Of land
with valuable easements annexed to- it
adapted to railroad uses, Will bring IN the
market. That such a strip of land, to be
bought at the price that the adjacent
lands sell for by the acre. Is at once OBJ
vieus When a railroad Is located so as
70 pass through a building plot or a farm,
tttI aSAhAsS AOht " Ing part OF Ile ialC
not appropriated is generally many times
the value of the land SO taken, estimating
Ifs value by the acre. and consequently
the owner Of the REQUIRED land VIII not
sell It except at a price that will eompen
safe him as we'll for the land h sells as
&or the damage sustained by the residue
of his property. There Is no reason tc
suppose that the land thus acquired. ii
sold in the market, for railroad purposes
will not bring a SUM equal to the cost al
its acquisition. The consequence is that
even II we assume these Valuations te
lave been made In the manner alleged by
the piaiRtiffs. and which fact Is disputed
| by the counsel for the State, still it is
reasonably estimated the lands in question
by the measure OF the value of the ada
cent lands: inc as there is nothing before
US from which we can perceive tina the
result which has been attained by the
methods used by the Board Is manifesfly
wrong or exQrbftant, the appraisals IN
| question canot be apnuIled or reformed =
Next 1t is claimed that the value of the
franchises should be deducted. and NOT
witkstanding the State Board has not
since 1885 assessed the franchises except
as part and parcel of the main stem value,
without which 1t would be valueless for
the purposes for which 1t is applied, a de-
duction Of $13, $50, 837. go Is claimed for this
these franchises are property and are to
be considered In making up the value OF
the whole system.
No better answer to this argument need
be cited than the following from the opin-
ion OF the Chief Justice delivered on this
point in the Supreme Court in he same
/ case.