New-York tribune., 1903-05-07
STATUS OF FRANCHISES.
Courts Consider Them as Real Estate
iR Estimating Debt Limit

Albany. May (SpeciaD.-wiIIiam A. Sutherland
Corporation Counsel OF Rochester. who was
here yesterday. said. when his attention called
the controversy the question % whether
the OF the special franchises OF city should
be considered IN Judging OF its debt limit under the
constitution that this question had already been
decided in the affirmative by the courts. He then
called attention 10 decision given By the Appellate
Division OF the Supreme Court Fourth Department
at the November term in 1902. IN suit brOughr BY
Frederick Krosbein against the city OF Rochester.
Mr. Sutherland appeared for the city which won
the
The central question involved IN the case was
whether the city or Rochester in the award -
bid for the paving OF a city street and in the execu
zion of the contract exceeded the 10 per cent i'm
itation OF Indebtedness prescribed by Article -
Section TO- Of the constitution Judge Alfred Spring
Of FranklinviIIe Cattaraugus County. who wrote
the opinion OF the court. which was coucurrsd IN
by Judges McI.ennan Williams. HiscOck and Davy.
made the following reference 20 the question ot
considering special franchises in computing the
debt limit Of a city
The value OF the special franchises OF the city o.
Rochester for the year 1871. pursuant 10 chapter
H. Laws OF 1899 appears upon the assessment Iol5
at the sum OF 81 Ss9 SO The qgery We are re to S
70 solve Is whether these IrstIiclse -. - -
considered as part Of the assessaoie seai eseaIs - -
upon which the 10 per cen1um limitation IS to %
computed.
time immemorial in the taxing statutes as We" 4
in legal nonenclaIgre l. E. - Tea1 ana Ssrosnrs r
prior the enactment OF the law provldlng Ior Ine
taxing OF public franchises Laws OF 1Sys Cnaptef
7l2) the assessors required upon their roll 20
preserve this distinction The law referred 70 Was
an innovation in that il made assessaole property
Heretofore not within the domain OF the assessors
While IL provided that the valuation OF tnls paf-
tcular class OF property for taxing purposes should
be fixed by the State Board OF Tax commissioner.
such valuation must be placed upon the assessment
roll by the local assessors nor vas there any on1i
sion define IN unmistak kable language 10 Wnlcn
class OF property Il should belong The Title OF ne
act. which Is significant in determining It's mean
ing. defines IL amendment In relation 20 the
taxation OF public franchises real property
In Section I occurs the definition OF the inter-
changeable expressions land real estate" and
real property" and ii Is comprehensive and de-
signed include these public franchises within in
It is therefore clear that ths
intent Of the legislature TO include this prop
erty in the general classification known as real
estate and land
This property when assessed. must be placed
upon the assessment roll like other property. ex-
cept that the value OF Il is fixed by and the hear
ing concerning IT, had before the STATE
Board Of Tax Commissioners. L therefore con-
forms the requirement Of the phrase real estate
(State Constitution: Art. g. Sec. 10)
We are Of opinion. therefore. that the valuation
OF these franchises is to be taken into account n
ascertatning the assessed value OF the real estate
Of the city for the purpose OF determining whether
there has been any infringement the constfru-
tiOnal interdiction referred TO-