The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-04-16

THE CITY'S VICTORY
W. D. Edwards Report to
the Municipality on the
Railway Tax Fight.
NET GAIN, s115. 900 A YEAR
The Equivalent of a Tax on
$4,000, 900 Of Property-What
1t Costs The City.
NET GAIN, $115, 900 A YEAR

The Finance Commissioners at their
meeting last night received the following
interesting communication
APRIL 10th, 1897.
Hon. Peter F. Wanser. Mayor. and Board
of Finance of Jersey City
Dear Sirs-Enclosed please find certi-
fed COPY of Chapter SO of the Laws of
1897. entitled "A supplement to an act en-
titled An Act for the taxation of rail-
road and canal property approved April.
TENTH. one thousand eight hundred and
eighty-four. approved March twenty
seventh. one thousand eight hundred and
Lightweight"
This enactment is the result of the eff
forts made by the authorities of Jersey
City before the Legislative Commission
on Taxation. appointed by his Excellency,
Governor Griggs. and before the Legisla-
ture of 1897. upon the report of hat
Commission. AT the present time Jersey
City receives, through the State, for the
taxes upon the real estate of railroad and
canal companies, within its limits, the
sum d about s229, 900 per year; under this
law, the city will receive a total of sS44,
- wv t0A yOaAs u AZ sum y L
Sis. 900. This sum will increase steadily
year by year with the development and
improvement of railroad terminals in this
city. even if no additional real estate is
taken for that purpose.
This sum of Sis. 900 in perpetuity is
equal to an increase in the taxable prop
ertys of the city of about 1850, GOO, and if
properly appropriated should cause a re-
H., .%s &c 4L1 1;+xr 49, = 49, cC- A n
per thousand to about $3.50. Immediate
~ upon my retainer by the city as coun-
sci in this matter, before the Legislative
Commission. 1 made a thorough examina-
ton of the question of railroad property
in Jersey City and in the balance of the
State. 1 was assisted very much in this
by Mr.. Edlow w. Harrison, the engineer,
who has acted as expert for the State
during the past ten or twelve years in
connection with this subject, and is thor
oughlys conversant with it in all its de-
tails, and also by Mr.. L. D. Fowler, in
the preparation of local assessment maps
and matters showing the relation between
this railway property and lands locally
assessed in Jersey City.
At the outset, the general feeling
throughout the State was opposed to the
claim of Jersey City, as it had been for
q number of years. This feeling we found
was shared by most of the members of
the Legislative Commission. Throughout
this controversy I found that this feel
ing was not confined to the railroad COM
panies, but was shared in to a large de-
gree by all of the other sections of the
State. h great mass of statistics pre-
scented before the Commission, together
with the ocular demonstration afforded
by a personal inspection of the railroad
property in this county, however, con-
WINGED the Commission of the Justice of
our claim. and hat some 1:eliec@ should
be afforded Jersey City.
The hearing before the Commission last
ed for five months, and during the in
teryal between the meetings of the Com
mission, the time was busily spent in
preparing statistics for the next meet
ing, and to meet the objections raised to
our tables and conclusions by the counsel
OF the allied railroad companies. In the
course of these Investigations, Mr.. Har-
rison and I visited all of the large rail-
road centres in the United States, and
presented the result of our investigation
so far as they bore Upon the question to
the Commission in this matter. We also
examined, critically, the systems and re-
suits reached in other States, particularly
New York, Massachusetts and Illinois.
We were specially aided by the taxing
authorities of the cities of Buffalo and
Doaton, where the conditions are more
nearly similar to Jersey City than else
where.
The Commission, in its report, found
that Jersey City was entitled to receive
all of the taxes imposed upon the ter
minal properties of the railroads located
therein. This class of property through
out the State is valued at $41, 600, 600. OF
that property there is located in Hud-
son County $50, ooo.0 900, or three
fourths of the whole State, and
in Jersey City alone s23, 600, 600. This
Is a substantial victory for the principle
for which Jersey City has always con-
tended. Since 1894 his class of property
has been assessed by the State at TX per
cent, whereof / per cent. has been paid
to the taxing districts, and ~ per cent.
has been retained by the State for State
purposes. The Commission recommended
that the whole of this money should be
paid to the localities. On behalf of Jer-
sey, City, I insisted that not only should
the whole of this tax be paid to Jersey
City, but that the property should be as
sessed at the same. rate as other property
is assessed for taxation in Jersey City,
20 wit: at 2.H per cent. instead OF at
LEO per cent-my contention being tina
. the Commissioners were right in de-
Gliding that this property should be taxed
for local purposes. the conclusion inevi-
tably ollowed that it should also be taxed
at local rates.
Before the Commission the counsel for
the allied railroad companies strenuous
ly objected to any. change in the existing
law. When the Legislature of 1897 met