New-York tribune., 1902-05-09

the United States and of the State of New-YOrk.
Judge Earl takes up four propositions in his
review of the law as follows:
First-Conhict with the State constitution on
home rule
Second-ConhIct with TIE federal constitution.
Third-On impairing contracts; incompatibility
OF the law with other tax statutes. in that the
value of a franchise for use Of a street cannot
be separated from other property values
Fourth-General objections to method OF de-
termining values.
on all OF these points Judge Earl dissents
from the objections. and finds for the State.
Under general headings the referee finds:
Where a corporation owns one or more fran
chises they may be assessed in bulk.
A precise rule or method Of assessing for each
franchise is impossible. and the assessors are
The state board need not divulge its method
of arriving at value They stand In the rela-
There is no foundation for the statement that
assessments we're made without due process of
law.
The law need not distinctly state the tax
The state board assessed at full value. while
in some counties other real estate Is not
the courts and referees. and has been so done in
numerous cases.
TWELVE MILLIONS INVOLVED IN SUITS.
Passed in 1899 signed by Governor Roosevelt
and then contested by a large body OF corpora
tions, the special Franchise Tax act at last in
volved the disposition OF Sl2OO0O0O. That
amount Of taxes. II was said by Deputy Attor-
ney General Conan recently, was subject to
the action OF the courts upon the various suits
brought 10 test the constitutionality of the law.
Outside Of the large cities. so per cent OF the
amount OF the taxes imposed under the Fran
chise Tax act has been paid. but the great New
York City corporations have not paid the tax, and
the fact at once disclosed, when ex-Judge
EarI's opinion revealed. that they would
appeal TO the Court OF Appeals and finally to
the United States Supreme Court from his de-
cision. Ex-senator David 4. Hill, who was
one OF the general counsel for the corporations
opposing the law declined TO make any COM
ment upon Judge Earrs decision.
Attorney General Davies and Deputy Attor-
ney General Conan heard the news of the de-
cision with especial pleasure, since the Attor-
ney Generals Department has conducted the
case for the State. Mr.. Conan personally rep
resented the State being aided by ]. Newton
Fiero as special counsel The other Republican
State officials were glad that the decision was
given It was because they think the action
Of a Republican legislature and Governor has
been justified. Moreover, they believe that any
lowering OF local taxes by increasing the
amount Of taxable property will be of benefit
this year TO the Republican party.
Ex-Judge Earl made his report as referee to
Justice d. Cady Herrick, of the Supreme Court.
This judge will confirm or reject his conclL-
sions. There will inevitably follow an appeal
to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
1t is not believed that the case can reach the
Appellate Division for argument before next
fall. or the Court OF Appeals before 1903 Cor
poration lawyers had some consolation to-day
in the thought that ex-Judge Earl in his de-
cision says the appraisement made OF the value
or the franchises OF the corporations must be
reduced 10 correspond with the appraisement
Of the value of real estate.
ASSESSMENTS MUST BE REDUCED.
In New-Yorll the assessment of other real
estate is 81 per cent of it's full and true value:
in Kings. 6S per cent; in Queens so per cent
Mr.. Deyo. the secretary OF the State Tax Com
mission. made calculation to-day as to the
amount Of the reduction that would have to
be made in the appraisement of the value of
corporation franchises in New-York City The
table given below shows the present appraise-
ment of 100 per cent and the reduced appraise-
ment:
a.