New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-11-15
FRANCHISE TAX DECISION.
APPELLATE DIVISION REvERsEs THE FIND
INGs OF THE LOWER COURT.

Albany. Nov 1.-THE Appellate Division. Third
Department to-day handed down a decision in
proceedings instituted by the New-York and
queens County Railway Company against the
state Board of Tax Commissioners which attacks
the validity Of the Franchise Tax relative to
tIe ming or reports. The companys appeal is
from an order made at special term by Justice D.
Cady Herr1ck dismissing the application of the
company for a writ of certiorari review the
valuation placed its special franchise by the
State Board OF Tax Commissioners. The medium
court reverses Justice Herricks order dismissing
the writ.
The law provides that all corporations coming
under the Special Franchise act shall file their first
report with the Board before November l. 1899. The
New-York and Queens County Company failed to
file its report until April last. and then subsequently,
instituted proceedings review the valuation
placed its property by the State Board. The
Commissioners fought the suit the ground that
the company. having failed to comply with the
law IN the fling OF its report could not bring GER
uorari proceedings for a review. Justice Herrick
held the same view and quashed the proceedings
which findings the Appellate Court now reverses
Justice Kellogg wrote the opinion. In which all of
his associates concur. Justice kellogg said in
part:
The Department contends that the language of
alive to fling reports makes time limit OF thirty
Board. and if furnished within that time the
whole penalty attaches, one part of which penalty
ment by certiorari. as provided by Section As of
TINS CAdpter II this construction Is TO prevail
follows that such right is lost forever. The pen
atty attaches to each annual assessment there
after firmly it does to the first assessment,
for the report called for is not TO be made an
nually, like the assessments, but once only, and
to be made before October l. 1889. l do not think
the Legislature intended such result nor do
think a reasonable construction OF the law leads
TO that condition.
The sole function of the report was to put be
fore the Tax Commissioners the necessary data TO
base valuation assessment upon II required
a full description Of every special franchise pos
sessed enjoyed by such person, copy of the
special law. grant. ordinance contract under
which the is held. statement of any condi-
ton obligation burden imposed upon such special
franchise. together with any other information
relating the value Of such special franchise re-
quired by the State Board. Failing 10 make the
report required by the State Board within reason,
able time specified by it, such corporation shall
forfeit the State 500 for every such failure and
the additional sum of SO for each day the failure
continues.
In these last lines OF this section the intention
{ of the Legislature is clearly manifest TO permit
the report to be furnished after the thirty days
Why else is this pressure put of so for each
day failure continues? This so day does not
forever. 1t seems to me TO be plain that the
Legislature intended to force the owner Of special
franchise to furnish the Tax Commissioners the
needed Information for assessment purposes. The
punishment is not everlasting; the offence is purga-