The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-08-04
THE TAXATION Of RAILROADS
Able Argument of Col. John w. Hinsdale Be
fore the Corporation Commission
Yesterday.
Yesterday.

j Commission with the duties and powers
| of assessing railroad property is not
| affected. The personnel of the Commits
| sion is entirely distinct from its duties
and powers
The intention of the Legislature was
| to give to the Corporation Commission
| the powers which heretofore were vested
| in the Railroad Commission to assess
railroad properties because:
/. Ii is unreasonable to suppose that
| il was its purpose to make no provision
for the assessment Of such properties.
Ii the contention of the railroad com
panies is correct, the Legislature have
omitted to make such provision for me
year 1899.
2. Section 60, of chapter IL. OF the
Laws of 1899, page IS, which is i'll pari
materia, and enacted on the same day
as the Machinery act of 1899, provides:
THAT for the purpose of raising reye-
nue.. and equalizing taxation, the rail-
read commission, or amy body succeed
ing to their powers, are hereby required
and directed to revise the assessments
fer taxation OF the entire railTaCad prop
city in the State"
This Clearly indicates that the Cor
roration Commission, which py EXPRESS
terms of the act creating it succeeds to
this power, is authorized to assess the
railroad properties Of the State for taxa
ton.
3. THE language of chapter G67, # me
Laws of 1890, page S74, ratified on
March Sth. 1899 1.-THE same day., infer
entiaily declares that the C0ropo %tl5n
Commission has succeeded to the du;ies
of the Railroad Commission. t ttk"s
il for granted that the Corporation Com
mission is required to value. assess and
certify railroad property for taxes, IN
as much as it provides that wAen r,ey
ii, this, they must assess the cscaped
property.
1t is c0ntended by the railroad COM
pamies, that because the Machinery Act
of 1899 which requires the Railroad
Commissioners ito assess railroad prop
erty and repeals all laws inconsistent
Herewith. necessarily takes from the
Corporation Commission the power IN
question. Put reasonable constrTc-
tiom must be given to the repeating
clause Reading I'LL the acts upon this
subject together. this coald not have
been intended, because. otherwise the
Legislature is comforting important
powers upon a board which It had three
days before utterly abolished. Besides,
the act in regard to escaped property,
and the Revenue Act from which | have
quoted, were passed on the same day,
and they beth recognize the transfer OF
the assessing power as to railroad prop
erty from the Railroad Commission 10
Al, -
The Legislature having provided in eff
feet that The Corporation Commission
should succeed to the powers of the
Railroad Commission in respect to the
assessment OF the railroad property, may
reasonably BE- supposed to have intended
that the former should perform the
duties prescribed fer the latter The
Machinery Act of 1899 prescribes the
thing to he dene, and the other acts
prescribe by whom.
There is another view of this question.
The act ahciishing the Railroad Com
mission. by is terms, did moi go into
effect udail April 18th, 1899. and the act
creating the Corporation Commission did
net 20 into effect until April 9TH, 1899.
The Railroad Commission was therefore
in existence en- March Sth VIXEN the
Machinery Act. with its repeating
clause. was ratified. This statute, not
improperly, directed the Railroad Com
missieners to assess railroad property,
and gave them the power TO assess UNI
! listed property. This was entirely COM
siSteIlt with the act, which WAS passed
on the same day, giving to the Railroad
Commissioners and TO the Corporation
Commission or any such board as might
succeed to their duties, THE same power.
. There was, likewise, no repeal by impfi-
cation CT the Railroad Commission act
by reason of the powers which this
Commission were to exercise after April
3, being in the meantime, intl1lsted to
the Railroad Commissioners, who would
not be succeeded by the Corporation
Commission llntil April 9th.
1T has been said that laws are pre-
sumed to be passed with full knowl-
edge Of existing ones en- the same sub
jeOt. and it is. therefore, hlpt reasonah BILE
to conclude thapt THE Legislature did
not intend to interfere with or abrogate
any prior law relating to the
same matter unless the re-
pugnancy between the two is
irrecOnclablc and hence repeal by inn.
IllcatfGn ~ not laI0feu; GM the contrary
courts are bound 10 upheld the prior law
If the two acts may well subsist to-
gether." Sedwick on Stat. q Cons.
Law 106.
Where, upon the repeal of a statute
creating the office Of city marshal, Law
was PASSED changing tine number
of jurors which the marshal was requir.
cd To summon in certain cases, it was
held that this reference to the office as
still existing did not operate TO continue
it. fbut the marshal was an fact still in
office for the abolition of the office had
not yet taken effect, so that the language
Of The law statute had somebody to act
upon.) People vs.. Mahoney, 13 Mich,
4S1. Sedgwick en- Stat. and Cons. Law,
102.
If it shall he held that after April >.
both commissions continued 10 exist, that
is, the Railroad Commissioners, repre-
sented by one member, DIR. Abbott. and
the Corporation Commission, composed
Of three members. there is no inconsist-
ency in committing the powers to assess
railroad properties to both of them, as
they might act together.
IT, on the other hand, under the au-
thority OF State vs. Jordan, supra, the
machinery act of 1899. recognizing the
existence of the Railroad Commission.