Omaha daily bee., 1902-07-15
RAILROAD TAXATION in COURT
s of Counsel on the Issues Raised in the M
Case Before Nebraska Supreme Conrt--RutE

Now the respondents, in their last answer.
say.
Respondents further represent that the
items mentioned in the foregoing para
these respondents took into consideration
In ARRIVING at the value of the property Of
the said railway, telegraph, sleeping and
dining car companies for the purpose of
taxation; that said respondents did not be-
ers and duties of the respondent board it
had authority to value and assess the cor
porate franchises OF SAID companies sepa-
erty. and here submit the facts that were
actually taken into consideration by said
board In the performance of its said duty.
Now, they assert by this second answer,
fled under very peculiar circumstances to
say the least, that they doubted their power
to assess the franchises separate and apart
from the other property, and II will be as
serted here that this first answer was a
mere conclusion. Why isn't it just as much
a conclusion to say that they did not as
sess the franchise? So l say that so far as
the second answer is concerned it does not
claim in so many words, in a straight-for-
ward manner. that they did assess the fran
chises. 1t leaves II for Inference. And II
I understand the rules OF law with refer
ence to a return to a writ OF mandamus 1t
is that nothing must be left to inference;
1t must be positive-it must state exactly
what they did or what thy did not do-and
II anything is left to inference the presump-
tion will be against them.
We have said, your honors, that fraud is
not only alleged but proven in this case.
! care not whether you call 1t actual fraud
or whether you call 1t a legal fraud. Ger
talnly the Ignorance, the Egyptian dark
ness displayed by the respondents when
they were upon the stand as to the value of
railroad property entities these REALTORS to
believe that 1t was at least legal fraud.
They did not know how to arrive at the
value Of any railroad property. They said
upon the stand in reference to the manner
in arriving at values that they couldn't tell
-didn't know anything about it. 1t was an
exhibition for the gods. Call it fraud or
call It ignorance, / care not which. Call 1t
a mistake II you please certainly 1t was re-
markable ignorance and something which
this court should correct and tell them how
to go to work to arrive at the value Of this
property.
Another evidence Of fraud-it might be
but little, but, nevertheless, l think 1t tends
in the same dlrection-is the fact that they
refused to make any record at all when
requested to say whether or not they would
value these franchises. Now, your honors
must remember, as l said before, that this
board was the first one which ever had
the question raised before It. They could
not be In ignorance. They knew very well
that there was a value connected with this
property. And right here let me call the
courts attention to some of the docu-
ments that were filed before them, and
those which Mr.. Weston had locked up In
his safe. Here is the argument made by
the Union Pacific tax shirkers. He shows
that the total value Of this property-and
mind you he only takes the physical prop
erty alone, the right of way, etc-that the
total value OF the railroad property
property throughout Its entire length and
breadth Is $40, $50, 000.57. That is the value
of this great Union Pacific railway, this
transcontinental railway. for taxation pur-
poses, though for tariff purposes, / pre-
sumo 1t Is increased considerably. And
he gives here a list, to which he makeG
this note: "Note-that this testimony was
3 introduced for the purpose Of maintaining
rates and not for taxation purposes"
When Attorney General Smyth was taking
: some testimony, this was the value of
I their tangible property, and that is their
argument right straight through. on which
they appealed to his board to assess only
D the tangible property. And II anything
3 was needed in confirmation Of that fact
3 we have only to turn to the argument the
i Burlington & Missouri River Railroad COM
) pany made through Mr.. Pollard, Its tax
. agent, which l will take the liberty OF read
1 ing:
B.. 6 NJ. sl6,se4, sO2, gross earnings; ex-
? penses. twelve millions and something. Ns;t
earnings for the year ending June 80. 1901
N,s22 .Se4.4l; earnings per mile gross $4.SO6i
, net earnings per mile, a.lS7 Chicago
sumo that embraces all your lines). 1885,
. $4,000 gross earnings; $22,026,00o operatins
h expenses sll'SSi.o 600 ! net earnings for taS
o mile, gross, $S,422; earnlgs per mile, net
? t2,915 per mile, SO that our lines east of the
n valuable than those west Of the river, a
e they earn net nearly three times as much
$ un Ie that the :, receipts e S5 HO Of C mG1S
+ on the B, & NJ, They nave 1Ss miles q
= nois. l am sure 1 an safe in saying thai
= they are worth hve times as much as thai
y number Of miles Of main ana side track
n earning standpoint or cost of reproduction
q The fact that we have double tracks prac
, be lost Sight Of. Ths bonde tpG debt on jun,
. & Quincy system was s1Sa, 2e4, 49, capita
stock, S1lO.571, 100; an average of $29,S60 pc
mile. The net earnings east of the river
= are nearly three times as much as those
lines east of the river II is very doubtful
70 II the lines west OF the river could have
: terest on the bonded Indebtedness OF SIC, 40
per mile, and consequently the capita
a stock of the lines west OF the river would
have been valueless. How, for instance
would Illinois like 10 have its mileage IL
n that state valued at the same figure pei
y mile as our line from Holdrege 10 Chey
d enne? Would that be fair and equitable
= The fact Is that we have to return to tn
u state of Illinois, Iowa, etc, the propert!
we have there, and these bonds and stock
are issued largely on the value of the prop
erty we own east OF the Missouri river, an
not on our lines west OF the Missouri river
IT a less earning capacity. II, therefore, w
= are assessed on a stock and bond basis her
in Nebraska, the most valuable part OF GU
~ road has already been assessed in tn
~ states east OF the Missouri based on wha
we have there, lint II a second or doubl
assessment and consequently illegal an
Is void. 1t is not as II all our property wa
ID in one state, such as the Denver & Ri
~ Grande in Colorado, or in one county src
as the Street Railway company in Omaha
ID r. ID. POLLARD, Tax Agent.
Now. that is their statement. Here ar
~ also some figures from the Union stoc
In Yards as to hogs and cattle and horse
+ which show the value for taxation and no
Is much they sold for and l suppose we wi
at hear a great deal about that.
Mr.. Kelby-Are those papers filed?
Is Mr.. Slmeral-Yes, sir.
h Mr., Kelby-Introduced by the reIatol
I'd Mr.. simeral-Yes, sir. Now, what is Il
e. assessment per mile In this state? Abov
naS 1850 per mile for these railroads. II
"a, assessment 1eyied by this board amounts