The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-11-05

In the office of Circuit Clerk Riddicl
here the opinion of Judge Charles Ii
Simonton of the United States Circui
court was handed down yesterday il
the question: as to the assessment o
railroad property by the North Carolin;
Corporation Commission As will ap
pear from a perusal of the opinion Judg,
Sinonton decides one point only-h,
holds that the Legislature failed to con
fer the taxing power on the Corpora
ton Commission. He does not pas
upon the merits of the controversy
whether railroad property is relativel,
assessed too high-at ALL The title Of
the case is:
The Southern Railway Company VS.
The North Carolina Corporation Com
mission, ct ais.
The Seaboard and Roanoke Railroad
Company vs.. the North Carolina Cor
pOration Commission, ct ais.
The Roanoke and Tar River Railroad
Company vs.. the North Carolina Cor
poration Commission. ct ais.
The Raleigh and CASTOR Railroad
Company vs.. the North Carolina Cor.
poration Commission, ct ais.
The Raleigh and Augusta Air Lime
Railroad Company VS.. the North Caro-
lima Corporation Commission, ct ais.
The Carolina Central Railway Com
pany VS.. the North Carolina Corpora
ton Commission, ct ais.
The Atlantic Coast Line Railway
Company of Virginia VS.. the North Caro-
lima Corporation Commission, ct ais.
The Wilmington and Weldon Railroad
Company VS.. the North Carolina Cor
poration Commission, ct ais.
The Norfolk and Carolina Railroad
Company VS.. the North Carolina Cor
poration Commission, ct ais
The full text of the opinion follows:
There are nine bills filed by the com,
plainants whose names appear in the
caption against the North Carolina Cor
poIation Commission, it's several mem.
bers and agents, and the officers of the
State whose duty it is to enforce the
assessment and collection of taxes.
The general features of the bills are
the same and their grounds of com.
pIaint are similar.
They allege that the North Carolina
Corporation Commission has assessed
for taxation the value of the property of
each of them and that in so doing they
have acted illegally and without war
rant of law.
There are four grounds upon which this
allegation is based
1st. 1t is denied that the Corpora
tion Commission had any power to levy
the assessment complained of.
I'd. 1t is charged that the method for
assessing the value of railroad property
differs so materially from that provided
for assessing other property in the State.
as to deny the compliments the equal
protection of the law.
Sd. That there has been in the State
of North Carolina a systematic and in
tenti0nal differentiation of real and
personal property, other than railroad
property, with the design to discriminate
against railroads and to cast upon them
an undue share of the burdens of taxa
ton, for the purpose of relieving such
other property of its just proportions of
State taxation.
4th. That there being this systematic
and intentional differentiation of real
and personal property, other than rail
road property, the property of complain
ants has been valued higher than that
of individuals.
The bills each prayed for an injunction.
Upon filing the bills a rule in each case
was issued, requiring the defendants to
show cause on a certain day, why an
Injunction in each case should not be
issued as prayed for. In the meantime
the ordinary restraining order was pass
cd, retaining matters in statu quo, the
complainants in each case, however,
having been required TO tender and pay
into the State treasury the amount OF
the tax measured by an assessment
plainly unquestionabe, and conceded 10
be legal. Albuquerque Nat. Bank vs..
Perea, lat Z. S.. 81; Northern Pacific
H. r. Go. VS.. Clark, 1913 u. s., 252.
The returns have all been made The
aifidayits filed on each side, numerous
beyond example, have been considered
and counsel have been heard in an elab-
crate and exhaustive discussion.
The first question which arises in these
cases, as indeed i'll every case, is as to
the jurisdiction Of the court.
1t il said that the great majority of
the complainants are corporations Of
North Carolina. But the questions
raised are federal questions under the
fourteenth amendment.
The assessment for taxation is the