New-York tribune., 1902-01-18

winch
tate and real property and with the municipal
charters and all previous acts Of the leglsiature'
purpose OF taxation the peculiar and exclusive
NoT,Yor Civ from the eariiest times in proof Of
this point, and said that II was Idle and a con
franchises were real property and in another that
they were new species OF Property, ~ ne I1el ds
tnct and peculiar way did prove that they
the contrary. that they had been taxed, and taxed
as part of the real estate of their owners that
SCISSORS in ali the cities and towns Of the state.
He insisted that the provision of the aGt OF ISS',
which permitted local assessors TO paruclpate p IN III
tent OF entering and recordirg the aid Not
save the act He said that this was purely a MINIS 70
terai duty and illustrated form OF G a1tf!p ia v W
vent exbaustiyeIy into The Iegisation and judicial
cipe Of maintaining the right Of municipalities TO
been universally upheld as the basic principle OF
The Senator examined the statute of 1899 in par
ucular detail to show that its parts We're SO muIn
Us di5 ~ Ie m ol ititona u He directed
aenon to the f0 nf faci tSat b taxing franchises
real property had been before the legislature OF
tho Jurisdiction OF local assessors. but that It
failed of Passage. and that the Governor cGRnenre @
particular and specific purpose Of passing an Ia act IN
@ Vision 2i Of @ stato board M as against that Of
officials; that the Governors rccommeEdatio were
court rad lnowiedge of the intention of the leeis
lature to regard the feature Of State valuation as
Here was condition Of things where It was rot
but where is PURPOSE was definite ana notorious; 5
tionality Of the scheme Of state valuation being
whole plan Of the act % subject franchises 70
determined by the state board to the exclusion Of
the local assessors. for = that was not the case
SCISSORS had already the power to fix the value of
rai est:tte; ana Ia ni drTcfns ahTip d,
while the present was substituted for II on the
1n aas s5aGtin s[0dnq 'h"t the s'hene ' state 'o
Senator Hin concluded his argument at 4 o'clock.
JUDGE BROWNS ARGUMENT.
Former Judge Brown was the next speaker. and
his argunerIt with the administration Of the
law by the tax commissioners He claimed that
the valuation of the franchises owned by his client.
the metropolitan Street Railway Company, must
be set aside Tor three First. because the
commissioners had considered them unit, and
not distinct parcels OF real estate; second, because
many facts had been taken into consideration which
had relation 10 the matter, and third. because
they had made the assessment at an alleged full
and actual value instead of at the proportion OF
actual value at which all other real estate in New
York is assessed Judge Brown -aid that the Met
ropoitan company the owner OF eighteen dif-
ferent franchises each granted a different time
for different and under different conditions.
and he quoted the testimony of Commissioner
Priest that they were taken as one franchise and
that they were taxed as one franchise, even
though there might have been several in the same
line, II IL was reported 10 Us as one constituent
company"
He held that the facts required that each fran
chse should be kept apart from all the rest. lie
its Compeusa ton could only be protected By
maintaining these distinctions, that among the
conditions affecting the franchises conditions
subsequent for the non-performance OF which the
might be defeated, and that that single fact
rendered absolutely necessary that the commits
sioners should value franchise separately. He
made by this commission was lien upon the
property assessed and that therefore the adms-
sion of the commissioners that they had valued the
street franchises as a unit Voided the Nauauons'
because there no way 10 enforce the lien.
He quoted from great number OF decisions 10
show that the courts required a rule or method on
enabled the court 10 understand the process by
which they had reached determination. He said
ed was mere guesswork and conjecture and that
that fact alone compelled the court 70 set aside
what they had done.
Judge Brown claimed that the earning power Of
the Metropolitan company proceeded directly from
its business methods, including therein rs right 10
| onerata its cars over continuous lines up OF
| to transfer passengers from one road to another
! for a single fare; that these rights were purely
attached to any all Of the owned special fran
| chises; they would not pass 70 the purchaser or
any single franchise through a sale under a mort
gage or upon a sale for taxes: that the ability OF
| the company proceeding solely from its business
methods and management. to effect transfers, was
also influential point, and that the prohts from
preciating asset noticed, condemned and
| Voided the valuation.
| Judge Brown claimed that. even II the constitu-
| tionality Of Of 1899 sustained and the
methods Of allowed. the valuation fixed
bv the State commissioners must be reduced to at
| least 81 per cent Of its sum total
At o'clock recess was taken until o'clock to-
| morrow morning. when Frank Platt VIII resume
| the argument for the corporations.