The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1902-06-24

NA'CA Ht'lIOu y " EXCEPT Ut the
tlIne hXed by law for the return of the
fcal ana personal property of the com
pany Tor taxation and it's assessment by
the defendant commissioners? The answer
seems to be found in the opening SEN
tCnce of section AZ of the same act:
Upon the meeting Of the Corporation
commission for the purpose of assessing
railroads and other property, they shall
thereurOn value and assess the property
OF each association, company, copartner-
snip and corporation in the manner here
in set forth after examining such state
mentS statements made under section
40 OF the same act), and after ascertain
ing the value CT such properties there
upon, and uoon. such other information.
as they may have Or obtain" AS we have
seen, the real and personal estate Of rail
road companies is to be returned. under
cath, for assessment and taxation to the
commission at such dates as real estate
IS required to be returned and assessed
for taxation, and there is to be no furth-
cr assessment of real estate until June,
1903. Then, if any assessment of the tan
giblc property of railroad companies
should be made by the commission ex-
cept at the time when by law that prop
erty is to be returned and assessed for
tdNdllOL, AOulu SuCu assessment De Ic-
gal: 1t would seem not. If, then, there
can be no valid assessment Of the tan
gible property of railroad corporations
until 1903. how can a franchise tax be
arrived at under section so? They stand
or fall together. Without a knowledge
of what the assessment of the tangible
property amounts to you could not dis
cover what the franchise tax would be,
for the franchise tax is the market value
of all the capital stock, certificates of
Indebtedness, bonds and other securities.
due consideration being given to the gross
earnings as compared with the operating
expenses, ESS THE PHYSICAL OR
TANGIBLE PROPERTY.
The contention of the plaintiff, that I'M
der section 40 of the same act the assess
ments made by the defendants of the real
estate of railroad companies in 1900 re-
mains the assessment until June, 1868,
and should be taken by the defendants as
a valuation of the tangible property in
determining the value of the franchise
under section 50. cannot be maintained,
for the simple reason that that assess
ment was made on the real and personal
property and included in it's value the
value of the franchise, and was there
fore a different assessment from the one
ordered to be made on the tangible or
physical property in section 80, by the
rule of determining its value by a con-
sheraton Of the actual cost to replace
he property with a just for
depreciation on rolling stock, etc. Nor
can an assessment be made by the COM
mission uopn the information contained
in section 40 and that which that section
authorizes the commission to secure, for
/ ibo p1cnn that Gnch an assessment WOnld
lie at a time different from the time
fixed for the assessment of tho property,
Of the tangible property, Of railroads I'M
der section As Of the same act.
The act of 1900 repealed section As of
chapter u of the Laws of 1899, and re-
CURED quadrennial assessments thcreaf-
ter, to begin on June /, 1903, and did not
| continue the assessment of 1899 or 1900,
or fix any other to be the basis of taxa
| ton on railroad property until the as
| sessment of 1908. x x i Section l. of
! chapter 7 of the Act of 1901 provides
| for ouadrennial assessments of railroad
property. to begin June i, 1903, while
section AZ of chapter Is of the Acts OF
i 1899 provides for annual assessments to
Re made on the first of June OF each
wear. These two sections are c~ontradic-
l Tory Oh edcu OlH1I, anu >
that the last enacted repeats that of 1S"9
| Eut that is none of our responsibility. II
may nave been ? part Of the compromise
and settlement with the railroads.. men
| TONED in the Governors message, which
was fled by defendants with their an
swer. but the Legislature, in the Acts OF
1901, did not incorporate it in that act
We have no evidence that the assessment
of 1899 or 1900 or any other, was adopted
as the assessment that should prevail
until 1903.
We nave not invoked the aid OF the
Governors message in coming TO a con
clusion in this case. The statutes Whlcf
we have been considering We're free IRON
| doubt. except as to the time Wnen thS
franchise tax should be assessed Sepa
rately from the tax on property, ana l.
certainly would be a dangerous eXpedleh'
for this court to adopt, as a rule OF III
depreciation of a statute, the conSldera'
tiCn of q communication to the LeSlsla'
ture OF the subject matter of the statute
It NAV not be that legislative BODIES al
ways carry out, or ought to carry out
the suggestions and recommendations al
dressed them III messages by the Chle
Executives of States.
We see no error in the action Oh LII
Judge in dismissing the case.