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

should they be made annually If they are
" D. acted upon only qIadrennially
why nave four separate and distinct sets
u annual statements when only one can
De or any possible use? These state
Eiehts must necessarily vary. As does
the value Of all personal property, as
times are good or bad. The value OF
railroad property especially is peculiarly
! susceptible 10 the changes produced by
the contraction ana expansion OF the
general business OF the country. There
lore, what might be a fair valuation for
one wear might be grossly excessive or
lEadequate for the remaining three
years. Real property is rot subject 10
such sudden ard violent fluctuations. or
at least TO a far less degree. Hence ii
Is the long established rule in this State
to assess the real property Of individ-
uals only once in every four years. while
their personal property is assessed an
nually. The value of intangible property
is much NOR liable to fuctuation than
even tangible personal property, and
hence TIE greater property OF an an
rual assessment. These reasons. with
none apparently TO the contrary. force
us to the conclusion that me act in
tended that sections a. and 30 should
apply 70 the assessment Of 1901, and an
nCally thereafter.
Great stress is laid upon the fact that
section as of the act Of 1901. which is
substantially q re-enactment of section
AZ of the act of 1899. changes the latter
section by emitting the words. ION the
first day Of June of each year and in
sorting the words at such dates as real
estate is required to be assessed for
taxation From this it is argued that
the Legislature intended that the fran
chise should be assessed for taxation
only once IN four years, like real estate,
and therefore should not be assessed
until 1903. The ~fallacy of this argument
lies in the fact that section rs of the
act of 1901 and section 43 of the act of
1899 are both by their express terms
limited to the tangible or physical prop
crty Of the railroads and do not pretend
to relate to the assessment of the fran
cEise. Section As says: The president,
= * shall at such dates as real es-
tate is required to be assessed for taxa
llOn return to the said commissioners
Tor assessment and taxation, verified by
the oath or affirmation of the officer
making the return, all the following
described property belonging to such
corporation within this State, viz" =: = I
Then follows q specific description Of the
different kinds of physical or tangible
property without the slightest allusion
= NhC IStiiAiiloto Vi luldISlU1t pIOptI by.
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.
If the Legislature had intended section
As to apply to franchises it could very
easily have said SO. In fact it would
have been easier to have said 'all prop
erty, both tangible and intangible, in
Guiding franchises than to have said,
as it does say, all the following de-
scribed property followed by a long
list of specific kinds of tangible property
alone. The fact that neither section AS
nor it's prototypes has ever alluded to
the assessment of the franchise, which
has always been regulated by other sec
lions seems conclusive. Those sections
: both in the act of 1901 and that Of 1899.
which refer to the franchises, all provide
for annual returns but one question re
mains Does the act, exclusive of section
4S, provide sufficient machinery for an
nual assessments of the intangible prop
erty Of railroad corporations. We think
, it does. Section 40 expressly provides
| that all railroad companies shall report
annually to the Corporation Commission
{ 80 The total assessed value of all the
| tangible property il the State" This
t obviously refers to the present assess
! ment of the tangible property that has
u already been made. We cannot suppose
d that the Legislature intended to say that
L the railroad companies should report in
the years 1901 and 1902 an assessment
that would not be made until 1903. The
. gift of prophecy is not of legislative
Il origin. Moreover, section 40 also pro-
vides that railroad companies shall, if
. required by the Corporation Commits
. sion, furnish annually in the month of
Il June all the information set out in Sc
, ton 1853 of The Code. This latter section
, contains 80 different questions complete
1y covering in detail the total cost of
. the road and equipment, with its char
acteristics, transactions, cost of mainte-
rance, operation and repair, the amount
of capital stock permitted. subscribed
: and paid in, and total floating and fund
ed debt with average rate of interest.
We see no reason why these three sec
> tiona. 40 and so of the Machinery Act
: of 1871 and section 1859 of The Code,
taken together, cannot be enforced with
: out reference to section As of said act.
It is not alleged that there is any re-
pugnance in the sections of said act. but
: rather that their inter-dependence is so
great as to forbid any separation. AS
they relate to different subjects of taxa
= ton, to-wit: tangible and intangible
. property, and are shown to be capable
; of independent execution, we cannot con-
: ear in The objection.
The principal change made by the act
OF 1901 aside from section 49, was the
insertion Of the following provision:
And particularly by consideration OF
the value placed upon the whole property
by the public (the value of the physical
property being deducted) as evidenced
by the market value of all capital stock,
n certificates of Indebtedness. bonds or
any other securities, the value Of which
is based upon the earning capacity OF
the property This is simply the rule
so REPEATEDLY approved by the Supreme
Court of the United States, as shown
above, and vas evidently suggested to
IS tho Legislature by the great disparity
between the assessed value of railroad
property and it's real value as shown by
the market value of the stocks and Sc