The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1896-11-05
RAILROADS. PLEA.
Equal Taxation Commits
sioners Have Another
Hearing This
Morning.
CENTRAL RAILROADS. ARGUMENT
Companies Insist That They Pay
More Than They Should .
Erie Companies.
CENTRAL RAILROADS. ARGUMENT

case for the Central Railroad He lost no
time when Attorney General Stockton
who presided. opened the hearing, by
plungirlg into the thrilling topic of rail-
road taxation. The question as he viewed
it was: Did the railroads pay their fair
share of the taxes? There was also a
subsidiary question: Was the distribution
of the money received for taxation fair?
He thought that the hearings which
had already taken place clearly indicated
that change was needed in the existing
railroad tax laws.
"And there was point made clear
continued Mr.. De Forrest, s'that the shoe
pinches most in Jersey City. Whether
that be the fault of the shoe or the fault
of the foot, don't know, but l think
shoe is needed
The Central Railroad of New Jersey, he
continued, believes in equal taxation. but
it must be a real equality not a sham
one. He thought that when all tine taxa
bic property in a city or a State was
taxed at the same rate with regard to
the same standard of value, that would
be equal taxation.
aBut with existing laws asked Mr.
W. Fl. Vredenburgh. chow can you bring
in personal property to be taxed at the
same rate?"
Mr.. De Forrest said that was problem
for the Taxation Commission, but to him
1t seemed that if the local Board of As
SCISSORS pursued the same methods with
regard to private personal property as
the State Board did with regard to the
railroad company's personal property se-
gregated from their realty, the question
could be easily solved. If the personal
property in the State was reached it
would add such an amount to the rev.
enues which would lower the present
rate. Why, he asked should extra bur
dens be placed on the railroads?
Can it be denied that the railroads in
paying full to the value, one-half of one
per cent on one class of property and
not paying more than their fun share
of the taxation in dollars?'' said Mr.. De
Forrest in presenting the basis of his
arguments.
This state of things he said, was be-
cause the standard of value was made
higher in the case of railroad property
than in the values of other kind of prop
erty. This was no mistake of judgment
by the assessors. 1t was the result of an
absolutely different kind of system. AS
proof of this proposition Mr.. De Forrest
gave details of values on property be-.
longing to the railroads and made a COM
parison of these with values of private
property.
He demonstrated, by sworn testimony
in a case before the Supreme Court, that,
as matter of fact, the assessment of
railroad property, second class, outside
of main stem. by the State Board was at
higher value than the same class of
property by local assessors, thus proving
his point that the railroads were more
heavily taxed than private property.
Summing up Mr.. De Forrest said that
prior to the act of 1884 the property of
the Central Railroad in Hudson county
was assessed by the local assessors at
500, ,OOO The State Board raised it s., ,70o,-
0OO 1t was not fair to put extra bur-
dens on the railroads who pay more than
their fair share now. They are taxed on
property, both real and personal and
their franchise, intangible property. is
taxed.
The case of the Erie Railroad came next
and Mr. James Allen made the argument
for that company. He attacked Mr.. Ed
wards proposition to take from the State
the one-half of one per cent on second
class property, and to impose maximum
rate of two per cent. upon the latter class
for the benefit of the municipality. Such
a proposition, he continued, If carried
into effect, would mean additional rail-
road taation of 1852. .1G757 and involves an
annual loss to the State of 500, ,64S21 He
said that if the "Queen" bill was carried
into effect it would mean an additional
tax of sl,2s5. .4o957. The second PROPOSE
ton to impose a local rate upon the sec
ond-class property in lieu of one per cent.
would mean an annual railroad tax in
Jersey City alone for 1896 of $40, ,25s s5,
and in the entire State of over $500 600
Mr.. Allen criticized these modes sug-
gested, and contended that it was unfair
to put burdens on the railroads, not be-
cause they do not pay all they ought to
do, but because the act of 1884 has not
worked out as satisfactorily as contena-
plated. The proposition, if carried out
would put a loss on the railroad COM
panies which they could not bear
Concerning the proposition of Mr.. Ed
wards, the Erie Railroads agent said that
Mr. Edwards had endeavored to show
that in New York, Illinois and Massachu-
setts the railroads pay higher taxation
per mile of road, per mile of track, per
thousands of dollars of capitalization and
per thousand dollars of gross earnings
than railroad companies In the State of
New Jersey. But after careful inquiry
Mr.. Allen said that the figures were mis-
leading and the conclusions wrong. The
taxing systems in these States are radi-
cally different from that of New Jersey.
In the second place the fiscal years for
taxes paid by the railroads in these States
are not coterminous with the same statis-
tics in New Jersey
In 1884. Mr. Allen said, the railroad com-
,panies paid to the State under the old law
the sum of s7ls. .e55.46 In 1885, under the
act Of 1884, the companies paid SIPS. So IS.
That meant by the act alone there was
increase in taxation of s4l2. .25s. The State
received sl9o.2s7 and the municipalities
s2sf. .961 so; and yet. Mr.. Allen said, people
said the railroads were not paying
enough This act has operated to save
the State from the imposition Of any taxa
tion for State purposes other than for the
support Of schools and this great taxa
.tlon has been paid fully ~ the railroad