New-York tribune., 1902-12-04
ARGUING FRANCHISE TAX.
PROFESSOR COLLIN FOR THE COM
PANIES AND MESSRS. CONAN AND
FIERo FOR THE STATE

Albany Dec. S-The argument in the franchise
tax cases continued to-day before the Ap
rellate Division of the Supreme Court. Third De-
1,srfment. For the contesting companies Professor
charles A. Collin presented arguments designed
10 show the unconstitutionality of the law. He
-resented the court what has been called the
federal point This is the contention that the
special Franchise Tax is in contravention of
section Article / OF the federal constitution,
providing that mo State shall pass any law i'm
rairing the obligation of contracts" and in con-
--svention of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit
ing the taking Of property without due process of
law Professor Collin urged that the annual pay
rrents by vario1s companies. for which he ap-
,,aared Of percentage of their gross receipts.
and in some of additional lump sums an
,,uaIIv not a. part of the consideration for
which the franchise was granted, but were tax
anon the franchise and specifically de-
sc-ibed in the Franchise Tax act itself. and that
they feature of the contract between
srantor and grantee under conditions which as
s1red the grantee that other additional tax
uas at any time TO be imposed than that fixed
in the grant
Professor Collin quoted the statement upon the
hearing before the referee that, in ascertaining
values the commissioners had proceeded accord
ing 10 mo general method OF fixed rule and the
finding Of the referee that upon the hearing before
the commissioners they had refused to inform the
srpearing companies what part of their assessment
was the value OF the tangible property and what
mart the value of the franchise. and he said that
these circumstances made the hearing before the
commissioners an utter farce and an obvious
taking of property without due process Of law. 1t
was the plain right of the companies to know how
much their tangible property was assessed at and
what part OF the assessment related TO the fran
chise.
The argument on behalf of the State was made
tv Deputy Attorney General Henry B. Conan, as
sisted by J. Newton Fiero. special counsel MT
Conan held that the law does not violate any pro-
vision the federal constitution prohibiting the
impairment OF the obligation Of contract. since
the franchise TO the street is property and tax
stIe as such. To escape taxation it must come
under some well settled rule of exemption; and
claim for exemption from taxation as against the
ernption. he asserted. is shown the part OF the
corporations. and CONTRACT, either express or
implied. exists the part OF the state that any
of the CORPORA tons shall not be subject TO taxa
nor on their franchises. In connection with ms
rojnt he cited numerous recent decisions OF the
Federal Court.
NJ Fiero argued upon the question that the law
franchise for purposes OF taxation can be and has
been. he said. ascertained and determined by the
State Board with reasonable degree OF certainty
The Tax Commissioners considered every element
entered into the value Of the franchises as
sessed it and excluded all others, as appears by
the return and the evidence The provisions OF the
constitution with reference to home rule by which
pointed bv local authorities, is not violated by the
q he said since the State Board Of Tax Commits
sioners are in sense local officers, but are
State officers.