The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-04-02

City Solicitor George NJ. Watson
has furnished the board of city as
SCISSORS with written opinion dealing
with the questions which have arisen
regarding the classification of the as
sessment on coal
Mr. Watson declares in this opinion
the full text of which is printed below,
that coal severed from the surface or
owned by persons or a corporation
other than the owner of the surface,
should be classed as third class prop
erty, while coal not severed from the
surface should follow the class in which
the surface is put. He points out the
necessity of not specifically assessing
such coal, but rather of aiming at a
fair estimate of it's value and Jumping
1t with the valuation placed on the sur
face. Coal breakers, he says, should be
classed as first-class property. The
opinion is as follows:
PIE OPINION.
To the Department of Assessors of the City Of
Scranton.
Gentlemen: Complying with your request for
All opinion in relation to the assessment of coal
lands within the city Of Scranton, send you the
following:
BY the terms of the act Of general assembly,
approved July 0, 1897. providing for the classif.
cation Of real estate and other property, for pur.
poses of taxation in cities of the second class,
and which said act is expressly preserved by the
terms of the act Of March I, 1901, creating the
department of assessors in cities Of the second
class, l find that the classification of real estate
within said cities is divided into three classes,
to wit:
Built up which shall be in the first class.
Suburban, which shall be in the second class.
Agricultural or untilable lands which shall be
in the third class.
find that the coal underlying the city OF
Scranton. which has been severed from the sur.
face, and is owned by another person, should be
assessed to the owner Of the coal, and not in the
name of the owner of the surface, and that coal
underlying and severed from the surface is real
estate within the terms of the act and being real
estate which is non.productive in itself, it
should be placed in the third class, as provided
by said act
find upon examination OF the assessment that
there are within the city certain mineral estates
which have been divided that is, more than one
person owns the coal underlying the surface,
which has been acquired by the owners at differ.
ent times and by different conveyances In
making this assessment of coal land thus divided.
Il division should be made and the valuations
placed upon the value of the real estate held by
each owner, and the assessment laid upon them
separately, but in should the assessment
exceed the amount that would have been assessed
upon the property had the whole estate been in
one owner. This may cause You some annoyance,
but think the true values can be readily ascer-
tanned by an examination of the several owners
interests, which the law authorizes You 10 make.
Nou can summon the owners of the lands to your
office and there examine them upon their estate,
and by such examination ascertain their interest
in the land.
AS ONE ASSESSMENT.
In relation to lands underlaid with coal that
remains III the owners OF the surface. This
should be placed in the class to which the sur
face belongs. Ii the surface be built up and I'M
proved, the whole estate must be assessed in one
assessment, and the property placed in the cassi.
ficaiOn to which it belongs, by reason OF the
improvements upon the surface This can readily
be done and an equal assessment made OF all
coal land values within the city. Where the
property is built up, the coal has generally been
worked out, or the title to the coal is separate
from the surface; but where it does exist, you
can readily add sufficient value to the real
tate, by reason OF the coal remaining under the
surface, or such an assessment as will bring an
equal taxation upon the coal lands so situated
with lands severed from the surface. Where the
coal is underlying suburban property, it seems
that the same general rule as laid down to prop.
critics OF the first class might be readily enforced.
As to the coal lands underlying the surface of
property in the third class, YOU will then be
obliged to add to the value of the coal lands the
additional value Of the surface.
In relation to coa-breakers, they should be
placed in the first class. They are unqueston.
ably operations carried Oh by the use of engines,
boilers ami machinery, and are changing the class
or character OF the coal, and to a certain extent
are manufacturing plnts. While they do not
manufacture coal, they prepare coal for certain
uses, and, believe, should be classed the same
as any industry changing the character of raw
materials by changing their form for market.
The question of the proper class in which to
place the real estate in the city is the only
question submitted to ME by your inquiry.
The legislature having omitted to particularly
mention mineral estate, it becomes your duty to
classify this property according to your best
judgment.
Therefore. coal severed from the surface, being
nonproducing real estate, il naturally falls in
the third class Coal not severed from the sur.
face should follow the class in which the surface
is put and the assessment should be so graded
as TO lay the burden of the tax upon the coal by
reason of its underlying hrst'class property, the
same as il is upon other coal lands within the
city. Very respectfully yours,
G. NJ, Watson, City Solicitor.
Scranton, Pa, March 90, 1902.