The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1902-01-14
ERIE TAXES.
New Jersey Must Return
100000 Collected in
Fifteen Years.
JERSEY CITY GETS IT ALL
Road Is Not Now Liable to
Both Assessments.

| principle of taxation is enunciated in aH
! opinion handed down by the Court of Err
rors and Appeals yesterday, which holds
| that the State should return to the Erie
Railroad Company taxes amounting to-
/ about $i00 900 collected from II for q per-
iod of fifteen years. from 1854 TO 1888. lis-S
/ elusive. II had already been decided that
i tie taxes levied against the larie eleya-s
i tor ana other property Of the railroad
&C mpany in Jersey City BY the local tax
| authorities was properly imposed py
/ them. a Similar tax. however, had beea
imposed and collected by the State and
The Ts,;lrcsd company through its counsel
made motion to settle the order 70 pea
| entered. remanding the record in this
/ statutory proceeding to the supreme court
| in order that it might thereby escape
threatened double taxation on the same.
/ property.
! The former opinion directed that the
taxes in question collected by the state
| from the Erie Company for 1897 and 1888
should be cancelled and the taxes re-
/ turned to the taxpayer. The decision,
however, set aside an order made by the
I Judgment cancelling the taxes lawfully
levied BY Jersey City for the years 1884 g.
1896 inclusive, and also an order direetin95
that the state pay over TO Jersey City
/ The taxes collected by The state for these.
years
4 AS the situation was thus left, the Erie
4 Company was liable to Jersey City for
the taxes from 1884 to 1896, notwiths tand-s
ing that it had paid to the State the
taxes assessed for those years. The Court
I in dealing with the case first determines
/ that the Erie Company had a right to
make the motion for relief, which was
questioned BY Attorney General Grey, on
fhe ground. first. that the orders made
in the supreme Court are not of a receiy-
able nature. and. second, that the Court
i Of Errors and Appeals has no power
to direct the repayment from the State
treasury Of the money which has gotten
into ii. although Illegally collected"
The contention of the Attorney General
was based upon a statute passed in 1895,
ana is thus presented in brief
..Tbe public policy Of the state in re-
gard IL withdrawing money from the
treasury il defined in the act of 1895
th,,s. THAT from ana after the first
dsv Of Noye4nber. 1895. no money shall
he drawn from the treasury unless it
shan have been explicitly appropriated
nv tbe annual appropriation act to the
I purpose for which it is drawn.
The opinion Of the court filed by Justice
/ Garrison holds that the relation between
| the state courts ana the Legislature IS
analogous TO that between the Federal
! Court of Claims and the National Con-
gress 1t presupposes that when the
court determines that expenditure of
4 money should be made by the Legisla-
5, ture, the successary legislation and ac-
companying appropriation viii be forth
coming despite the generally accepted
commonism that s'tae State cannot be
I, sued. This doctrine most 1oreioiy
enunclated py Juslce aarrison' lofils
I the most interesting and Important part
Of the opinion. Justlce sarrlsoh, Feier-
ring 70 tne acl ol ioso eieeu " the 49,
torney 1ete'al, %
szlVihg = liiis iesAsid.ise 49, - elis
ioree - asis usst = = 'si ~ Mss
ny -
~ 49, ~. ,saa ~
- 80
s1l = 11sa,,5 -
1,,s ;,s,ss ,, 80
ss..i ~ So ! ss t,sat
80. ,,a,, ~ o,,Tv
- 49, Ie''.s
-
z aAu =
20 sAs :. .i'1 -
-'lso ~ - .''e.ss -
:
- 'i'e q - suen - = po' 80
- s,'e.a = 49, : '''''s
= .,,,S ~ : : rz.l,1t.. S'7',..,1s-