The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1900-02-20
THE CITY WON THE SUIT.
r,ncE FALLIGANT DECIDED TAI
CASE AGAINST STREET RAILWAY.

n
CASE AGAINST STREET RAILWAY.
savannah, ThunderbOIt and Isle OF
Hope Railway ObjecteGto the Pay
ment of Taxes That 1t Did Not Con-
slider Lawful and Had the Levy OF
executions Issued by the City for
These Taxes Restrained by Judge
FaIIigant-The Arguments for
Temporary Injunction Had Some
Time Aso--The Temporary Injunc-
ton Being Refused, the Case Is
Now virtually Decided.
Judge Faligant handed down a decision
in the Superior CourrysF e4iay that up
holds the legal contentkhsrof the city in
she case of the Savannah, Thunderbolt
ana Isle of Hope Railway against the
Mayor and Alderman of the city of Sa-
yannah, and dissolves the temporary re-
straining order heretofore granted.
The decision marks another step in the
recent history of taxation in this state and
emphasizes the wide-reaching influence o.
that harmless-appearin clause of the
constitution that provides that taxation
shall be uniform and ad valorem
throughout the state" Illustrating in this
connection the ease with which the best
laid plans of the legislators can be forced
astray. The efforts of the laWmaking
fower of the state to mitigate the severity
Of the tax law as applied 20 corporations
have been without avail and if relief is
sought from the conditions which often
results in double and triple taxation of the
same piece of property, it must be by a
constitutional amendment, and not
through any change in the statute law Of
the state that the Legislature can effect.
In the present case the street railway.
company has been taking advantage for
a number of years of the provision of the
state law that permits such corporations,
among others that are enumerated, to
make their returns directly to the Con-
troller General of the state, add providing
that taxation assessed by the Controller
General on such returns shall be in lieu
of all other taxation, whether state, coun-
~ or municipal.
Last year the city became convinced
that it might tax the street railway in
another fashion, and accordingly passed
an ordinance, modelled on one enforced
by the preceding Council. providing that
the street railway companies doing buS-
ness in the city should be taxed, first, on
their mileage, and second, on each car
tnat they employed in their business. In
cidentally though, the city determined
that ii would increase materially the
amount of the tax, making it $1,000, and
the company objected. When The city
marshal attempted to enforce collection by
issuing executions against some OF the
property of the company, temporary re-
suaining order was obtained from Judge
T'al Mt an off 81 n this
proceeding,
The question whether or not the restrain
ing order should be changed into a tenn
porary injunction, to be of force until the
case was argued and decided upon its mer-
its al the trial term of the court was
argued some time ago. Messrs. Barrow &
Osborne, counsel for the company, appear
ed for the plaintiff, and Mr.. S. b. Adams,
city attorney, for the defendant After
hearing evidence and argument, Judge
Falligant took the case under considera-
lion. reserving his decision.
The decision of the court has been
awaited anxfously by the attorneys and
others interested on both sides of the ques-
ton. The argument upon the application
for the temporary injunction had been full,
and it was generally felt that the way
in which Judge Falligant decided it would
determine his decision when the case for
a permanent injunction was argued. In
all injunction cases this is generally the
fact, the decision on the applica-
ton for permanent injunction,
unless extraueous circumstances or
new evidence OF changed conditions have
arisen since the hearing on the temporary
Injunction was had, being thus determin-
ed.
Judge Falligant's decision is in line with
recent decisions of the Supreme Court in
similar cases and completely knocks the
props from under the contentious of the
plaintiff. After reciting the name and ma
ture of The case, the decision continues:
in the above stated case, in which the
declaration was filed and the order to
show cause was granted on the 18th day
OF August, 1899 the court being of the
opinion that the tax required and the ex-
ecuton issued are lawful, it is considered
and ordered that the prayer for a tenn
porary Injunction be, and the same is,
hereby denied and the restraining order
heretofore granted be, and the same is,
hereby set aside"
A similar case to that just decided by
Judge FaEigant is also pending in the Su
perior Court. In it the street railway com
pany is the plaintiff a second time and
the Mayor aud Aldermen of the town of
Warsaw the defendant. AS the case is
based on virtually the same state of facts,
IL is probable that the same principles of
law VIII govern and that, like the other,
il will be decided against the plaintiff