New-York tribune., 1902-12-03
FRANCHISE TAX BATTLE ON
APPELLATE COURT HEARS ARGUMENTS
AGAINST sI2OO0.De0 ASSESSMENT
, on CORPORATIONS.

Albany Dec 2-The Appellate Division OF
the suprerne Court. Third Department, to-oay
heard arguments the appeal OF forty-t"o
oornorstiors from the decision of the late eA-
Judge Robert Earl, referee. declaring Gun
stitutionaI the law for the taxation ot IRAN
cfises While forty-seven big corporations are
rsrfiss 70 the SUIT the arguments are being
made on behalf of the appeals OF the Hde'io-
-,olitan Street Railway. the Brooklyn City hali-
way the Consolidated Gas Company. the Coney
leland and Brooklyn Railroad Company the
New Amsterdam Gas Company and the Consoh-
dated Telegraph and Electrical Subway Coih-
many These corporations have beeh seieo'eu
recause their cases cover all of the polhts "A
Law and fact involved in the entire controNeiss-
The decision of ex-Judge Earl. who dieo TO-
day 1vas confirmed 10y Justice Herrick' ol 'iie
Supreme Court. on July II last 1t fouhu tiia'
the sneciaI tax law violated neither the state
nor the federal constitution. that the 0ld'e
Board Of Tax Commissioners was not requlreo
IN determining the value of a special franchise
20 sanarate the value of the tangible from the
value of the intangible property CONSTITUTING i
franchise and that the rate of taAa1loh oh sPe
cial franchises should correspond Win '"e &C.,
spplied in determining the value OF o1heI i
estate IN the same tax district The amouh, ii-
yolved ir the suits aggregates sl--o"oV', -
has been assessed against the corpoia'i0
Cfara
The coupanies contesting the law are repre-
- b. x1-il1;ar, H Page jr. William N Dyk-
10, Prank H PIatt, John c. Toniilsoii
r,sa-,es 4 Collin. Charles F. Brown Samuei "A
teordsle, Henry J. Hemmins and Wllhaih l.
sbeeban. while the State is represented pS Dep
MY Attorney General Henry b. "oiiio-
special Deputy J. Newton Fiero-
The orenine argument was made by liiidiA
II Page ir who discussed the nome fuie w
iaction: that is. the contention that IL Is un0Oi
.,+,,tional to take the power of assessing Ai3Ii-
chises out of the hands of local asse9s0i 0
rlace IT with the State Tax Board
+. 4-a,cb,ses were real estate within the
-,.s,tnr of the statute defining real estate Ior
ta~ation nurposes Mr.. Page said, tnen 'ne io"ni
assessors always had had jurisdiction over lhei''
and TO take away that jurisdiction ho"
clearly a violation Of the State CONSTITUTION
and If franchises were, as the AltoIhes - -.
eraI contended. a new species or proptItIS ppSss as
seTatofore subject to taxation. not ncludeo
within the statutory definition OF Ieaa e..
but taxable real estate no" loi IL w a. 20
time then there was the pam lLiaIlIlIeh i@ @ - -
the obligations Of a contract there was an eNi-
dent attempt the part of the state 70 Ii.Po |
7lpon the franchise owner other taxes than those
IN The view of which he had agreed to take ana
operate the franchlse . =. .Lo
Mr.. Dykman addressed his argulneh, 70 tiLe
admitted fact that the State assessors had as
sessed the franchises owned by the Metropon!ah
Street Railway one continuous 1rahchIse;
when in fact there were eighteen separate anu
distinct grants He contended that the tax was
made void because the franchises were not as
sessed separately, as are parcels OF real estate
Frank H PIart's argument dealt with the i'm
rracfjca bilitv of the Franchise Tax act and the
5npossi bility of its execution He said the com
-uissfoners had admitted that they had valued
franchises upon the earnings OF the 1rancnlse
owning company. although they were unable to |
say how far its earnings were due 10 good Wlli |
and good management rather than to the right |
TO use the highways
John c. Tomlnson appeared on behaf OF the !
New-Amsterdam Gas Company. the Northern |
Union Gas Company and the Central Union Gas
Company Mr Tomlinsons main contention |
was that a franchise was incapable of specific |
valuation and being so. the attempt to assess
IL was the taking OF property without due proc
ess of law: and. further, that the grant to the
State Tax Comrn3 n3sSoners of the right to assess
and tax a franchise was. in effect delegation |
Of the legislative power of the government to |
the commissioners, under the pretence of con-
ferrfng upon them quasi-judicial power.