Omaha daily bee., 1902-07-19

IL 10 be treated as n part OF the foadbeut
within. this provision of the statute, and
and as was held in Detroit citizens Street
Railway company against Common Council
OF Detroit, II seems clear that the assess
ment should be made in the townships
through which the railway runs, and this
was decided in the recent unreported case
OF United Railway company against Board
OF Assessors. As TO the rolling stock, tools,
etc, the statute Is equally clear that these
should be assessed in the city where the
principal office OF the company is locnted.
These are no part Of the track, but per-
sonal property. 1t is contended that the
determination OF the assessing officer is,
in the absence of fraud, final. II the CUES
ton were whether the judgment of the
assessor as to value was final, we should
not hesitate to hold that his decision could
not be reviewed collaterally. But the con-
Their. 1t contends hat property not assess
able was In fact assessed. Under the stat
ute q Comp, Laws, 1887, section $500 this
neer Iron company against City of Ne
saunee, 11e Mich, 4so. "A N. w. ZOO. The
writ will be denied.
1 desire to read from the ~ Am. & Eng.
R. r. cases. 55s, entitled State v. Austin &
N. ". r. Co.:
The statute requires all property to be
assessed at its true and full value" and,
In effect, defines that value to be what 1t
for cash. Persons nsii PROPOSING rop sf TO i seli or f buy
a railroad, In forming an opinion as to its
value, would doubtless consider the condi-
ultimately reach their conclusions by a
careful estimate of the probable net in
There are no especial rights and privi-
leges belonging to or In any wise apper.
terms are applicable to the real estate Of
thought that the legislature had such prop
erty in mind when IL inserted the provi-
sion, and that It was intended. that. in
valuing a railroad for taxation, the valua-
ton should include every right and privi-
lege which was exercised in producing its
Income, and that it was not Intended to
disassociate the soul from the body of
the living concern, and value by itself the
Hfeless remains. If we are correct In this
conclusion, then It follows that it was not
the intention of the legislature to tax the
franchise of a railroad as a property sepa-
rate from its real estate. To so tax 1t
not permitted.
But there is another consideration which
gives strength to our conclusion. The
statutes OF many states impose a tax upon
what is called the Intangible property" OF
railroad corporations, and various methods
have been devised by which the value of
such property may be ascertained; and 1t
seems to us that, II it had been the pur-
pose of the legislature to tax this charac-
the railroad itself, a method would have
been provided by which such value should
be, determined. Unless the property be
valued as an entirety, thisi is the reasonable
thing to do. The physical property of a
railroad company Is of comparatively lit
tie value, except for the uses for which II
is acquired. Its so-called intangible prop
erty Is of no value without the railroad
and Its equivalent.
BY the amended answer is shown. and
that most conclusively, as we have rea-
soned out in our briefs, that the board
assessed everything that belonged to the
railroad companies in this state, the in
tangible as well as the tangible property
everything. The first answer fled was in
the nature Of a conclusion. 1t was simply
an opinion of the members of the board
that they had not considered the fran
chise. There is nothing in the act which
specifically requires them to consider a
franchise, as such. by the name fran
chise; they are only required to assess
all the personal property of every de-
scription, which includes all property.
When they were asked to say ultimately
what they did, then they had no hesita-
ton in stating that they did consider
and assess those things which entered into
the aggregate of railroad property for use.
/ think this matter has been covered
fully, and It is unnecessary to consume
further time.
Argument for the respondents by Mr.. Ran
som, representing the Pullman Car company
as anxious curiae: l simply want to call the
courts attention as to the sleeping cal
company. The record shows, as it has beer
made here, that there was no protest filed
and no objection made to the manner In
which they assessed the sleeping car com,
pany's property. The record as brought In
and put in evidence, shows that the board
followed law precisely. 1t taKes several
pages In the record. 1t takes more pages
in this record to assess the Pullman COM
pany than 1t does all the rest of the cor
porations. The record as made up by this
board and introduced by the relator shows
under sections 40a and 40b, which are added
to sections 80 and 40 and were passed since
sections 80 and 40 were passed, that this
board complied precisely and strictly with
those two sections. Section 4Oa provides
what return shall be made, and that return
is here, and II takes more space and papel
to make the return as to the sleeping cal
companies than 1t does all OF the railroad
companies. 1t has itemized everything thai
the statute requires shall be itemized
There was no protest filed and no evidenc,
introduced except Poor's Manual, ana tina
simply shows that this is a corporation or.
ganized under the laws of the STATE of iii.
nols and Is a manufacturing concern.
Mr.. Howe-The stock Is worth 23o.
Mr.. Ransom-Why, II is worth 234, tina
Is, among people who speculate. but we hav,
nothing to do with that. There is no stat.
ute in this state that authorizes rn;s boarC
to assess a corporation such as tins on IT.
stock. Why, in Ohio, where they talk o
these express company cases, their statute
Is nothing at all like ours. Our statut,
provides specifically how you shall asses
s~leeping car companies. The statute o
Ohio provided how they should assess ex
press companies. and it, too, a page ror tn
legislature to lay down the rules by whicl
express companies were to be assessed, blu
It did not take more than ten lines ror tn
Nebraska legislature TO lay down the rule
by which the sleeping cars are to be as
sessed, and the rules are as different a
daylight Is from darkness. They want I
impress upon this court that under the lay
Of this state you must assess the capita
stock.
Mr.. Howell beg your pardon, 30 far a
your company is concerned, It is an impor
tant. almost a controlling item or impor
lance, to know as an element. to snow tn
value OF the franchise under which thei
property is moved over our state.
Mr.. Ransom-Inasmuch as the suprem,
court Of this state has decided that vi
have no franchise and that we are not com
mon carriers, and that we cannot be hell
as common carriers, / think that ought Il
dispose Of that question. In the case o
LAVA AGAINST puiiman PALACE Gar Coun