The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-01-12

Investigation or Comparison az fo what
1s the proper OF. Legitimate: basis OF CONF
parisor, /. e. shsLii the amount of tax
paid by railroad and canal companies On
their real9and tangible personal property,
b~eseo1npared with the amount of tax paid
b;y individuals on like property o. shall
9be Franchise tass paid nv railroads and
canals he added thereto and compared
with the tax paid by individuals who
nave no franchises, or shall the license
Zee or franchise tax of other corpora
tiops, which is not a property tax, plus
the tax paid on their real and personal
property, plus the tax paid by fhe resi-
dent holders Of the stocks, bonds and
ether evidence of indebtedness Of such
corporations be compared with the tax
paid by the railroads and canals. on their
real and tangible personal property. plus
erty tax. their stock. bonds and other
evidences of indebtedness, being exempt
from taxation in the hands of Individual
owners thereof, or shall the tangible per-
companies, as taxed, be compared with
the tangible personal property only,
owned by individuals and other corpora
tons; or shall it be compared with the
tangible and intangible or Invisible prop
eFty of individual owners. Shall the poll
tax paid by individuals be set of against
the franchise tax paid by railroad and
other corporations, or shall the main
stems of railroads and canals be taken
as the basis OF comparison, and then the
second class property as a separate
basis, or shall the two be combined for
the purpose of Comparisons, as different
results will follow from the application
OF these different methods Of comparison
suggested
Having settled or determined a legiti-
mate or just basis of comparison. it is
then quite evident from what has been
stated in a former part of this report,
that the "X or quantities in
the problem are these:-
First-Is the property used for railroad
and CANAL purposes actually assessed by
the State Board Of Assessors at the con-
stitutional requirement of true value?"
Seconds the property of individuals
and other corporations assessed not in a
single taxing district. but in all the tax
ing districts throughout the State. at the
like standard of true value, and if not,
what is the average per cent. of such
standard of value assessed for the entire
State?
Third-Do the local assessors list and
tax all the taxable property of individ-
uais and other corporations, real and
personal, tangible and intangible, with
the same efficiency as the State Asses
sors, who list and tax the property of
the railroads and canals?
Fourth-What is the average tax rate
with the tax rate required by law, to be
applied to the property used for railroad
and canal PURPOSES?
These elements pr facts being ascertain
ed, the problem becomes largely atmathe-
matical EQUATION, with a result which
would be approximately true or correct.
From the facts is submitted to the
Commission, it appeared and was as
sumed. that the property used for rail-
road and canal purposes was assessed
by the State Board of Assessors as it's
true value, in compliance with the con-
stitutional mandate.
A method of comparison made at the
public hearings of the Commission, and
which will be found in tables in appendix,
was to take all the four subdivisions of
the railroad and canal property, treat it
together, then all the property of midi
vidualS and other corporations, subject
to taxation, and treat that together. The
first table, marked Schedule r." reduces
the railroad and canal property to the
assumed basis of valuation of other
property for taxation; and the second
table. marked Schedule 81 raises the
value of property owned by individuals
and other corporations to the assumed
basis of value assessed by the State
Board of Assessors. These tables, sub
mitted by Jersey City, have been ans
wered by counter tables fled by the D.,
L. & w. R. R. Co, the Lehigh Valley
r. r. Co., the PENNSYLVANIA Railroad
New Jersey. See appendix, PIP. 1O7-I7.
If the first Schedule r" is accepted
as correct, the advantage to the railroad
and canal companies would be 1892, I97. 76.
Ii Schedule s. Is accepted as correct,
the advantage to the railroad and canal
companies would be $493, Col. 50, after the
adoption of ex-senator Edwards proposed
plan Of increasing the rate on second
SA<~a1tS } VA Ian AAA &A lA1o NN4Allt
companies to Two per cent. If the
schedules filed by the railroad companies
be accepted as correct, the railroad and
canal companies itare now paying in ex-
| cess of their just share of taxes.
These tables illustrate, however, how
iInpIactiCable it is to compare two things
which are essentially dissimifar. How diff
hcult and unsatisfactory it is to make
a correct and just comparison of two
systems of taxation, based upon dissimi-
lar principles. Such comparisons may be
useful in a general way, and for the most
general purposes, but they are unsuited
to base tax legislation upon, without a
principle, which should always be the
primary consideration, and the figures
secondary. And whether the one set of
figures is Enthusiastically correct, or APP
proximately so. or the other, is of small
moment in the view which the Commits
sion takes of this branch of the subject,
ACT OF 1884 SHOULD NOT BE DIS
TURBED.
The Commission is of the opinion thai
the Act Of 1884, ;as revised and amended
by the Act OF lssS, by which the prop
erty used for railroad and canal pur-
poses is segregated and taxed as a class
Nby State Assessors, should not be dis
turbed, except as to s~econd-class proper
ty, for the following reasons
First-The system has stood the test
of litigation and been declared constitu-
tional by the court of last resort in the
State.
Z ~ ~ Ca 0CCllE ca SkGdk
benefit to the State and the local taxing
districts, as tested by twelve years of
actual experience, and as compared with
any of the systems by which railroad
and canal companies were taxed in New
Jersey prior to the Act of 1854, is supe-
rior to any of them.
Third-We do not hink we could frame
any better, law, even if we thought the
Legislature would be willing to pass it,
and from such examination as we nave
been able to give the systems and their
practical operations of railroad taxation,
in the various States of the Union, we
think the Act of 1884 gives the State
of New Jersey a system Of railroad tax
alton equal to some and superior to many
of them, if the amendment herein sug-
gested hould b, enacted into law.
Fourth-Because the taxes levied and
assessed under said Act by the State
collected, the Act providing an effective
method of compelling payment and col
lection of the taxes. 1t provides that the
tax shall be a debt due from the rail-
road to the State, for which
an action at law or in equity may be
maintained, and which shall BIZ a pre-
ferred debt in case of insolvency. And
in addition thereto, it provides that if
the tax remains unpaid, in whole or in
of the time. limited for paymen thereof.
it shall be the duty of the Attorney Gem
eral to apply forthwith to a Justice of
the Supreme Court for an order that said
tax Ink the interest due thereon and a
reasonable sum to be certified by said
Justice to be paid for the expense for
said proceedings, shall be a record of the
Supreme Court and Judgment shall be
entered therefor in the name of the State
~ NJorr AV.arr at-E rrf q 81 i A-~sJ