New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-04-04
ANOTHER MENDMENT NEEDED.

An examination of the reconstructed hdplu
Transit act containing the latest amendments
asked for by the Commission shows that 10
change has been made in the singular phraseol-
ocy of q provision relating to taxation. 10 wmch
we called attention when the earlier ahehu-
ments were introduced, six weeks ago. Ihat
provision reads as follows:
NO TAXES SHALL BE LEVIED upon any
portion of any railway so constructed unaer
either OF said three methods or upon any rollIhs
stock equipment or other railway property useu
in connection herewith. upon any franchlse
grant. contract or right to construct or operaIe
such railway any Interest IN any sucn ran ran
chise grant contract right PRIOR TO Any
CALENDAR YEAR IN WHICH THE Mel
PROFITS Of the operation of such railway over
and above the cost Of its operation ana pay :
ments 10 the city prescribed under this act
SHALL HAVE BEEN LESS THAN fEh
CENTJTM Of the actual cost OF the construction
of such railway (but not including IN sueh cos'
vided etc.
Now. on first reading the foregoing extraordi-
nary collection of words an intelligent citizen
accustomed to expressing his ideas in simple
English would be likely to conclude that it was
merely another illustration of the awkwardnesS
with which legislative acts are commonly
drawn and If. after one .ierusal, he was 100
tired TO look it through again, he might retain
the impression that the substance was there
and the form was of little or no practical impor-
lance But our belief is that the Commission
cannot afford longer TO ignore point which we
have already brought TO its notice. The words
which we have printed in capital letters contain
the gist of the provision. and whatever they
may he meant to say, what they actually DO say
is that no taxes shall be levied before the profits
are less than per cent Now, those words
mean either nothing or something II they
mean nottingham Is to say, If they are mere
nonscnse--they certainly ought not to constitute
the substance OF the taxing clause of an I'M
mensely important franchise. But If a meaning
is 10 be given them, what shall 1t be?
Suppose that the underground railway is put
in operation in the year 1903 Suppose that in
each of the years from 1904 10 1910 It's net
profits are more than per cent Suppose that
in the year next following the net profits are
reduced by bookkeeping or otherwise below
per cent Then the company would be exempt
from taxation for the previous years by express
provision of the act If it had chosen TO keep
the taxes for those years in litigation, il is diff
cult TO see how they could thereafter be collect
ed and if it had paid them they might be re-
coverable. OF course. we are not rash enough
to predict judicial determination of any ques-
ton: but are merely pointing out the construc-
ton which not only might he put upon an ex-
tremely queer combination of words but which
would seemingly have to be put upon 1t by any
body who felt himself bound to declare what it
said as distinguished from what II might could
would or should have said. For aught we can
see 1t might also he held that though taxes
could not be levied in any year prior to year
III which the profits were less than ) per cent,
they could be levied in year in which they
were less than per cent, but that if there was
no such year-thGt is, If the profits never fell
below ) per cent-the company could never be
taxed at all.
But do not care to confuse the issue by
superfuous speculations. Least Of all do we
wish to be understood as Quibbling about a
serious matter for the vexation OF a Commission
which we highly respect. The simple fact is
that the provision Of the Rapid Transit act to
which we are referring is so badly drawn as 10
be both absurd and dangerous. In this detail
at least, the Commissions lawyers have botched
the Job, and somebody ought to set 1t right
without delay.