New-York tribune., 1903-04-29
LOSE LONG LEGAL FIGHT.
Continued from first page.

decision to the Court of Appeals and on April
6 argued before the court that the special fran
chise tax act absolutely CONSTITUTIONS
The chief argument that the law was uncon-
stitutiona! was made on April before the same
court by ex-senator Hill. The decision OF tho
Court of Appeals, which was written py Juuse
Vann is outlined below:
The opinion fully comedies that the principle
of home rule for communities cannon De III
fringed by the legislature and that toeai iuho
tions cannot be transferred TO State oihcers. Ii
exercised at all, they must be exercised iocahS
But the functions of local officers nave oeeh
r,o5;eed bv the legislature and the names OF
the offices changed.
Tho nresuuntion is in every case. says Judge
Cullen that the act of the legislature is con-
stitutional and should be so held py the courts
IL a reasonable construction of the constitution
and Of the act will permit
In the case of the Special Franchise Tax law
the legislature seeking means Of more equ1taoiy
distributing the burdens of taxation Iouho
nrouertv scattered about the State valued at
at least 5000 100000 In the way of special IRAN
chises in the possession of public service corpor
ations which were not and never had oeen
taxed This property they included In new
system of taxation, laying upon the STATE oodiO
of Tax Commissioners the duty or its 'alua-
ton This the court holds the legislature hao
fndubitable right to do.
This property was not local and did not Iah
within the ordinary taxing scope OF county
CITY, town or village. Moreover. II was Vi
new and peculiar class Of property requlIihs
peculiar experience and knowledge on 'ne p"''
of the assessing officials.
The court denies that the franchises OF
consolidation of corporations should have been
assessed separately, since they derive thel'
highest IL not their only value from ehe coiii-
bination Of all into single enterprise Ihe coU1
likens the percentage Of receipts licenses dno
the like paid by these corporations 10 llluiIiOI
palities to the purchase price Tor Std'e iaii
There is no provision that the properly cIe"'0u
tv the grant shall be exempt from ta&a''OA'
saws the opinion "for no municipality ha0 'N0
power to withdraw property from lne laAi-9
power Of the State, or to PROVIDE pS VI 60.
or contract that it shall be free for all time
fror, +ba common burden which property gener-
aIlv has to bear. Special franchises were not
taxed until bv the act of 1899 they were aooeu
to the other taxable property OF the otdte'
The court declares that 1t cannot SUSTAIN 'ii0
contention of the corporations that the Id" III
wolves impairment OF contracts III Fioia'r'-
the federal constitution, nor that IL Is imp az
t;cable of fulfilment, nor that the frahchl'e 'Ai
not he accurately valued, nor that the TAX CUM
r,,,scionaru formulated no rules for vaiuatloh'
nor that the corporations did net nav g 60
hearing and adequate review. nor that TINS t"A-
ation takes their property without Que PROCESS
of law ,,x +rib,,+a IN Judge
Earl Who as original referee in the case, @IoIiu @
iatad the now prevailing view OF the cohS'i'u
tionalty of the law. -, r.. .Lo +braa
Of the SfS412 8S4 taxes now due for tae tnree 1
vears since the law was passed. in lo99' sly,
2i4 264 was assessed in the ei5y COZ 95 ~ Monroe
S947 $50 in Erie County. S345o9o IN e9sS StSI oS9
Countv. $500 1O7 in Onondaga County @1JS,oU @yoor
in Westchester County $22956S nt in St097 s46 Tx
County, S104 391 in Rensselaer, Rem el COunny, 500
an5 n in schenectady County, S27 623 in saras ss
toga county s262o7 in FutGn I34 Csc S9un'y IN eersoD
ro1tI ~ the remainder being assessed, some III
each Of the other counties of the state; "A An tSa OF
This money goes to the counties none +;o 70 'lt0
State and will serve to reduce iooAi