New-York tribune., 1902-05-09
FRANCHISE TAXES UPHELD

substantial victory has been won in the
campaign TO compel the franchise holders of
this State TO carry their fair share OF the bur
dens of government. Robert Earl formerly
chief judge Of the Court Of Appeals. who was
appointed by the Supreme Court referee in the
litigation over the Franchise Tax law sustains
the constitutiOnality of the law upon every
point. This report has yet to he confirmed and
the question doubtless will be taken to the Ap-
pellate Division and the Court of Appeals. The
views Of ex7Judge Earl however, carry great
weight His learning and his fairness are be
yond question. He has examined minutely into
the questions az issue. has considered carefully
all that the most industrious and able lawyers
could say against the tax. and when he un-
equiVocally sustains the constitutonalty of the
law and the general correctness of its admin
istration there is little reason TO fear that the
court which he so long adorned will find reason
20 overrule his judgment
1t gives peculiar satisfaction to The Tribune
10 find its frequently expressed views of the
justice and constitutionality of franchise taxa
ton sustained by this eminent authority. The
Tribune took up the Ford bill when ii was first
introduced, and had no apparent chance of pas
sage. in the hope of arousing people on the sub
ject, even If immediate results were not Sc
cured. Largely through its advocacy the bill
was passed through one house and on its sug-
gestion Governor Roosevelt sent the special
message which, in the face Of the opposi-
ton OF the Assembly leaders brought the meas
pre 10 favorable vote in the other. After
the industrious misrepresentation OF the char
acter of franchise taxation by the corporations
which desired immunity from taxation on the
value of property rights in streets which they
bought and sold, il is refreshing 10 note the
l1ar Snlf rfaE Isesfr "a
franchise values and compensation for fran
chise grants. Ex-Judge Earl says:
Regarding violation of United States constt-
tuition in impairing obligations: This franchise
tax takes away nothing granted and IL impairs
no contract The imposition of the tax is not
an effort 10 exact more compensa ton for the
franchises. but to compel the owners thereof Ia
pay. in common with other owners Of property
their share Of the public burdens.
II the argument OF the REALTORS is 10 be car
rfed TO Its logical results, then the State could
never tax any franchises Of any kind granted
by IL without impairing its contracts and the
millions which have been taken from corpora
tlons under franchise tax laws I'm all parts OF
this country during the last twenty years have
been taken in violation Of the federal constitu-
tion and have been illegally exacted.
II is said that these franchises cannot now be
taxed because they were not taxable at the
time they were granted. They were not by any
law contract exempted from taxation. They
were property of immense value under the pro-
lection OF the government, and there was rea
son ia their nature for exempting them from
taxation. There contract, expressed OIL
implied, they should never be compelled TO bear
The corporations have tried hard to confuse