The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-07-26
CHASING THE BACK TAXES
SOUTHERN THE GAME SOUGHT
YESTERDAY
THE SEABOARD HAS A HEARING SATURDAY
The Balm Case Quoted as Authority That Taxes
Cannot be Collected on Rolling
Stock not Owned in
This State.

1t spent the day considering the ques-
ton of collecting back taxes on certain
railroad property in the State.
The Mercantile Trust and Deposit
Company, of Baltimore, was ordered to
arYlear and show cause why its rolling
stock operated over the Seaboard Air
Line system to the value of about 81
100000 should not he assessed for taxa
ton for the year 1891. 30, '96 and ~.
The Seaboard and Roanoke Railroad
Company was ordered to appear and
show cause why its rolling stock over
the, Roanoke and Tar River Railroad
should not be assessed for taxation for
the years 1891. '95. '96 and 81.
- The Southern Railway was ordered to
show cause why it should not be assess
ed for its rolling stock on the North
Carolina Railroad for 1894, 80. so and
81: and over the Piedmont Railroad for
1894. 90. '96.
Maj. John d. Shaw appeared as attor-
ney for the Mercantile Trust and Deposit
Company. and for the Seaboard and
Roanoke Railroad, and asked that their
case he continued until next Saturday;
that he might get certain information
~ -N'S
case.
1t is understood that the first named
company practically acknowledges its
liability for the tax claimed, the only
question being as to amount due. The
Scaboard and Roanoke Railroad, how
ever is i'm a different position and will
contend that the State has no right to
tax the property, under the decision OF
the Supreme court in Balm VS.. X. X ID.
Railroad 10J y. c.
The Southern was represented by Mr..
H.. w. Miller. private secretary to Col.
Andrews. and Mr. +. ii. Busbee, attor-
ney. Mr. Miller's argument. summed
up. was as follows:
/. That the Southern Railway Compa-
ny cannot be liable FOR any tlAes
for 1894, because the: company Was
organized after June 1st. 1894.
?. That the Southern Railway Com
pany was not liable for taxes on the
Piedmont Railroad for the years 1880
and 90 because the Southern was then
foreign corporation and 1t listed all lis
rolling stock in Virginia.
,. That the Southern wasn't liable for
taxes on the North Carolina Ra,ircad
for the same reason.
These three points were elaborated
and the usual statistics Of taxation III
other States quoted.
Mr.. Busbee cited the case of Balm VS..
Richmond and Danville Railroad 005
y. Co to the effect that the rolling
stock of Il foreign corporation couldn't
be taxed in North Carolina.
He admitted that the Piedmont road
was owned by the Southern and that
since 1896 the Southern had been listing
the rolling stock upon that road, and that
since 1896 they had been giving i'll
rolling stock of the Southern Railway
operated on the North Carolina Railroad.
This. however, he said, was a voluntary
act on the part Of the Southern due 70
its change of method of listing rolling
stock, and was no warrant for going
back of 1891.
Both Mr.. Busbe-e and Mr.. Miller
claimed that the Southern had been very
liberal in giving in its rolling stock
for taxation in North Carolina.
The State Of North Carolina was rep
resented by Col. John w. Hinsdale, who
claimed that the Southern Railway Com
pany being the owner of the Piedmont
Railroad, which was an integral part
of its system. absorbed by ii and for
which capital stock was issued. was oiJ-
eTiI1IlS tulS EtdU III .NoTilI 1HTOilIld uuI-
ing the years 1895 and 90 without list
ing any stock for taxation. That it adj
mtted its liability for sl1S.39U by listing
this amount of rolling stock for the years
1897. '9S and '96, the rolling stock for
these years being the same operated on
the road i'm 30 and 90 and on which tax
is now claimed by the State He showed
nv reference to the Railroad Commits
sion reports that the average proportion
of rolling stock to the total value OF
track was over Is per cent. on the Wli-
mington and Weldon, Wilmington. Co
Iumbia and Augusta. SeabOard and Roa-
noke, Raleigh and CASTOR, Atlantic ana
DanviIle, Norfolk and Southern, showing
that this proportion is Il necessary COM
plement of rolling stock Whereas the
Southern Railway had listed for taxa
tion on all of its roads IN average Oh
only about & per cent. 1t had how
ever, necessarily used in operation as
large Il proportion of rolling stock as
these other railroads. In 1897 the
Southern recognizing its liability upon
larger amount of tax on its rolling
stock listed for taxation on the North
Carolina Railroad for 1891 '9S and 30
rolling stock to the amount Of 5000, 292,
which was used on the North Carolina
Railroad during the years 1899 and 90
and ought TO have been listed under the
statute.
Col. Hinsdale distinguished the Balm
case in that the rolling stock there
sought TO be taxed was used on the
North Carolina Railroad which was
leased by the Richmond and Danvilir.
whereas the Piedmont Railroad was re-
ally part of the Southern. owned and
operated by it; and that as to the North
Carolina Railroad the most OF the rolling
stock was used within North Carolina
and in domestic business
In this connection he cited the Pull
man Palace Car Company VS.. TwombIy
90 Fed. Rep 65S) which holds that it
isn't necessary that the same cars
shall remain in the State provided an
equal number shall be in continuous
use in the State. And he read Desty on