New-York tribune., 1899-06-07
THE FRANCHISE TAX.
MAIN GROUNDS OF THE ATTACK 6f
THE CORPORATIONS.

STATE OFFICERS BELIEVE IT DOES NOT VIOLATE
TIE OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES OF THE
corRrs AS TO ALLEGED PREcEpENrs'
.rhanv June (speciaD.-Governor Roosevelt
.,aa,c,sa the day he signed the Franchise Tax ac'
,hs, 90 constitutionalty would be attacked "o'
that ne believed that II was unconstitutional pu.
simpIy because he knew the corporations lne'ee'eu
would make every possible point against the ne"
law .-o ns 9
,sen the assertion that It violates the provisions OF
section Article 10 Of the Constitution. whicn' u
"a argued prohibit such body as the eta'e |o'i'-
rnissioners from appraising the value OF corpo,I
zion franchises That is duty. II is argued "nie"
can legally be executed only by ioca4 assesS'
Section z Article TO- reads as follows
an oor,.v officers whose election appointment
IS not provided for by this Consthu,1n conn,,es
elected S ine y Se Sosrds Of Supervisors other
county authorities as the Leg,sa,uren nose election
a. srnnointment is not provided for by this Consu
sutton shall be elected by the electors OF spcn or
Dointed aHp by such authorities thereof the Legs
isture shall designate for that purpose No, pro-
S1es FOR By this Constitution and al 9cers whose @
ofces may hereafter be created ey aW hs snT Tngis
elected by the people. or appointed, as '"e H"e''
lature may direct
Attorney General Daviess attention was caiieu "
TITS section Of the Constitution to-day ana 10 INC
decision OF the Court OF Appeals In the Ray ynoi'u
case in 1867. and he was asked IL these ci'auoHs
would make him think the Franchise Tax ACT u"-
constitutional.
.rhev vrouId mt" he replied land the argument
troro the RAYMOND case IL would seem 10 me, ia
very fimsy one. There is nothing In the NohsV'u-
tcn in my opinion. TO prevent the passage 0i
law creating new methods OF taxation with ne"
,ns,rumentalities like the State Tax Con'nissio"-
ers."
William ]. Morgan the State ControHer' coin
nen,ing upon the same matter. said:
The State. since 1880, has been inVehuns
new taxes and then providing new macniheT! AOi
their execution II passed the Corporation Tax IA"
and then established the machinery gradually ior
fhe collection Of the taxes on the corporations IL
passed the Inheritance Tax law and then provloeo
tho machinery for the collection OF the money from
inheritances II is said the State Tax Commis-
sioners cannot appraise the value OF franchise
Why not? The State Controllers Department GER
tainly takes part in the apprasement OF an es'a'e
The surrogates appoint the appraisers or estates
pp, the schedule Of the property is sent here and
~ we are dissatisfied with the appraisement we
have II changed 10 our liking or appeal 10 the sur-
rogate and then to the courts II the surrogate us
agrees with us.
Lastly. the State passed the State Liquor TAX
and then provided the machinery for the coliecton
=, ,bs money Of the liquor dealers II is thus OBJ
v,ous that II is no thing for the State 10 pass
new taxation laws taxing new things and having
new machinery for its collection. The people nave
discovered vast amount Of property IN franchises
which have hitherto escaped taxation ana the
Franchise Tax act is its result. 1t Is good act.
and believe the Court Of Appeals beyond all ques-
lion will declare Il TO be constitutional
Henry H. Lyman the State Excise Commissioned
appeared amused when told that the constitution
allty Of the Franchise Tax act vas 10 be assaiied
or the ground that local assessors and not the
State Tax Commissioners should apprase the value
ad o opinion
OF the Court Of Appeals IN the suit Of Frederick
G. Ensfeld in 1895 TO test the constitutonality OF
the Liquor Tax law. The Court spoke as follows
through Chief Judge Andrews who wrote the
opinion:
The former excise laws stood upon q different
They were general laws applicable 20 the whole
state establishing a system for the regulation Of
their Application in cities and towns. The system
was administered through boards or excise. some
ingisjsfure but generally elected in towns with
jurisdiction to grant licenses In the town for which
heyy %eEe Se x eha e Tfs aho1g
cally elected or appointed. State agencies for
sors. Collectors and Highway Commissioners. were
independent public officers. exercising public pow
ers and charged with public duties specially pre-
scribed by law.
Can the State Tax Commissioners exercise author
fly in the various counties 10 appraise the value
OF franchises II they do not thereby abridge the
powers now exercised by local assessors?
Attention called to-day bearing upon
this point. 10 a decision OF the Court OF Appeals
in 1885 in regard 10 act extending the turisdic
ton Of the Department Of Parks Of New-York over
some park property Of that city In Wes.chester
County. The Court Of Appeals held that the pro-
vision OF the act extending the authority Of the
Park Commissioners over the lands in another
county was not vioative Of that provision Of the
Constitution which preserves 70 counties. cities.
,Na r40 o1a sbaI- lcoai rTz
GERS article X. Section p. since the park police
did not become Westchester County officers and
no officers Of that county were legislated out OF
ofice Judge Finch OF the Court OF Appeals wrote
the opinion in the In the Of this Opin-
ION he said:
Some criticism has been aimed at the provision
OF the act which extends the jurisdiction OF the
city Department Of Parks the newly acquired
tsrrit93ry 9 BY the terms OF the New-York charter
maintenance OF the city parks. and is authorized
and order. who within the parks. are vested with
the power and authority as the police Of the
mitted in Pelham Bay Park and within the county
Of Westchester the arresting officer might be re-
s 70 aSe ms s 0eIUfe msese M ate
IS said violates Section of Article OF the Con-
and villages the rsht to elect their own local on
GERS or 20 have them appointed by some designated
annul an unessential detail Of the act; but we do
not see how the section is lnfrnged. The park po-
No Official OF that county is legislated out OF Office
and successors appointed by State authority. as
was the case upon an insufficient pretext in People
agt: Albertson G5 n. Y, 5Q) nor are the powers
and duties Of any officer Of Westchester County
so curtailed or destroyed practically to subyert
his Office and bestow II on another. was the case
Of the Sheriff Of Albany County IN People ag,
Keeler 90 Hun, iT5).
The appellants concede. using the language Of
their brief mat there are no words in this re-
markable act which take away from the county
authorities Of Westchester County any OF their
jurisdiction powers" And so no officers are
removed or superseded or interfered with and the
local government Of Westchester County is not
abridged. We that questions may arise as
between the park police and the county authorities
and there may be collision as TO the rights OF
each but that VIII not raise the constitutional
question presented.
PHOSPHATE FOUND IN TENNESSEE