The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-09-24
MANDAMUS CASE
IN The BAL ANCE
Judge Robinson Reserves His
Decision
HE MAY DECIDE TODAY
The Question Was Very Ably Argued
on Both Sides.
APPEAL TO Be TAKEN TO SUPREME COURT
Il is an Interesting Ques ion and Both Sides Are
Anxious to Have il Settled by The
Courts Beyond All Con-
tr0versy.

The petition of Sheriff Jackson, of
Washington county, for mandamus to
compel the Corporation Commission to
assess for taxation the franchise of rail-
roads, as provided in chapter Z, Laws of
1901, was yesterday argued before Judge
w. S. OBJ Robinson.
Mr. Fl. s. Ward of Plymouth, appeared
for the petitioner; Attorney General Gill
mer represented the Commission.
The hearing of the case, which con-
sisted of the reading of the pleadings,
and the argument by counseel, consumed
about two hours, at the conclusion of
which Judge Robinson announced that
that he would sleep over the question and
announce his decision later.
What that decision will be was yester-
day and last night matter of consider
able speculation. Some knowing ones
laid claim to dead straight tip" to the
effect that the mandamus would issue.
others, laying equally strong claims to
prophetic power declared that the action
| would be dismissed $50 quick it will
make your head SWIM
The wiser and more conservative ele-
ment were inclined to the opinion that
one or the other of these claimants was
slightly in error; but just which one,
they did not undertake to say, for Judge
Robinson was not giving out any opinions
in advance.
The case was ably and exhaustively
loses will probably take the question up
to the Supreme court
Mr. Gilmer's contention was that the
operation of sections As, 49 and so of
chapter 7, Laws of 1901, comforting on
the Corporation Commission the power
to tax the franchise of railroads, is post
poned till 1903-the time at which other
real estate is assessed for taxation.
AS showing this, he read the railroad
, taxing laws passed by the various Leg
islatures and commented on the fact that
in all but that of 1901 the words, ION
the first day of June Of each year within
this State" appear, while in 1901 the
words are stricken out. The omission,
, he thought, was significant
Also he read the special message, sent
by the Governor to the Legislature, an
nouncing the compromise of the railroad
taxation cases. In this the Governor
recommends that the real estate of rail
| roads be assessed only every four years
like other real estate. So, continued Mr.
Gilmer when the Legislature came to
pass the taX-aSsessing law, it struck out
"the first day of June of each year" and
put in 'at such times as other real
estate is assessed"
MY contention is, added Mr.. Gilmer.
that sections 4S provides for the assess
ment of railroad property until 1903, and
this is the only section that confers any
power of taxation"
Judge Robinson asked if this wouldn't
have the effect of exempting a certain
class of property from taxation.
Mr. Gilmer thought it would until the
law went into effect but that the Legis-
lature could do that if it liked, and ii
had done So He went on to say that it
was impossible for the Commission to
determine the value of the franchise. as
prescribed in chapter Z, without first find
ing the value of the real estate. and
that this couldn't be assessed till 1903.
That this was the intention of the Legis-
lature, he thought clear from section 48.
and the compromise between the Gov
ernor and the railroads, as set forth in
his message, showed a reason for this
change in the law
MIR Ward said the only point in tho
case is admitted to be whether section
80, chapter Z, Acts of 1901, which saws the
defendants shall first determine" the
value OF the tangible property of the rail-
roads and shall then assess" the jntan-
| gihie property, to-wt the franchise, is
| put in force at once by virtue of the
| ratification clause of the act or whether
| it is deferred in it's operation until 1903
| by section 4S, which says 1.-The president
| OF the railroad companies shall return
| for assessment the reports of the value
of the tangible property at such times as
real estate is required to be assessed"
ct IS doubtful whether this language.
directed only to officers of the companies
| and not to the Corporation Commission,
is even sufficient to warrant the Com
mission In refusing to assess the tangible
personal property, as they admit they did,
for the reason that the defendants admit
that the property Of three lines of rail-
road increased in one Year tfrom '9S to 99)
S9,c22, ,757. 1t would be an exemption from
assessment for three years of a certain
species of property only part of which
is increasing in value at the rates of near
sl0,G0O,Oo yearly, and that exemption
must be expressly granted. if at all 1t
is mandatory that all the tangible prop
erty of the railroad shall be taxed every
year at its true cash value. The Consti-
tuition Article v. section 3, and Commits