The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1902-06-02
TO REVIEW TAX
Supreme Court Will Take
Up Case Of North Jersey
Railway Company.
Especial. to aThe Jersey City News.'')

Special to eThe Jersey City News.'D
NEWARK, June 2. 1902-Chief Justice
Gummere today allowed d writ of certio-
rari, the purpose Of which is to review in
the Supreme Court next Tuesday the ac-
tion of the State Board of Taxation in
reducing the taxes for 1901 assessed
against the North Jersey Street Railway
Company. The local Board Of Taxes and
Assessments fixed the figure at s2,oI5. 900;
the traction people appealed to the State
Board and that body reduced the amount
to s1.240,97942 That reduction was not
satisfactory to the city.
AS soon as possible the matter Will be
carried to the-Co4lfts Of Last Resort. as.
whatever way the Supreme Court decides
the subject. it vii be taken TO the Court
of Errors and Appeals.
Application for the writ was made by
Henry Young. special counsel for the city.
First he read to the chief justice an affi-
davit made by Herbert Boggs, city attor-
ney, in which there We're set forth several
technical reasons why the action Of ths
State board was subject to review in the
Supreme Court. The principal reason was
that no evidence has been produced before
the tOdlS D0diQ 10 StlOW 1lic AA4etA rAIe ert~NS
Of the traction company's property thai
has been assessed.
The AFFIDAVIT contended that the local
Board had very properly assessed. accord
ing to the market value, while the State
Board fixed it's figure from the cost Of
reproduction, which Was claimed to be
improper, no matter what allowance for
depreciation had been made. If the State
Board had done right in arriving at its
conclusion from the cost of reproduction,
the affidavit further read, the cost of paw
ing between the tracks and one foot on
either side of the tracks should also have
been figured.
Then Mr. Young declared that the State
Board of Taxation was the only special
statutory tribunal in the tSate vested
with the power to review the proceedings
of local boards. That power of itself, n2
argued was a question for argument, anu
for that reason, if for no other, the WITT
should be allowed. The paving between
the tracks up to 1901. counsel added, had
aggregated cost of s6S76l1.
Mr. Young contended that the act Great
ing the State Board of Taxation was pass
ed in March, 1891, and that that, together
WIFI SUBSEQUENT deltSs A@ie0S u H4AN ANses
of the court to inquire into the matter
He said that no statement Of the legal
principles on which the reductionhad been
made was disclosed. Further, he contend
ed, that there was no evidence to show
that the market value of the property is
less than that fixed by the local Board.
Counsel also referred to the fact that
ten years ago the Radels, who then owned
the South Orange avenue lire, had paid
an annual rental of $4,000 to the Newark
Passenger Railroad Company for perTnis-
sion to run their cars from the junction
of Springfield and South Orange avenues
to the Market street depot. That. he con-
tended. was an element which should be
considered in fixing the market value OF
the company's property
The Chief Justice remarked that the
fact that the Radels had paid an annual
rental of $4,000 for the use of the tracks
on Market street was no safe guide, as
another person or corporation controlling
a stretch of tracks on Broad street, from
Bank to Mechanic streets, might ask and
get s25O,000.
THAT might be a mere hold-up,' said
the Chief Justice When corporation
gets another at its mercy it can do most
anything it wishes"
Former Governor Werts, representing
the traction company, objected to the
granting of the writ
In granting the writ the chief justice
said that the city was entitled to respect.
even though he did not agree with coun-
sci. as the courts from year to year had
the same proposition before them