New-York tribune., 1903-01-21

FgE
tion TO include those rights as real estate so
that they would he taxed. u.was a crude at
tempt 10 embody in the tax Jaw an loea NthN. ny.
WAS not at all new. tt had been pfeacheo e.
BRYAN meetings for years. Ford's bill was one
of the many anti-corporation bills on the lesis
lative calendar, all introduced IN Inc spirit oi
Organism. The session was long. lastlne uhLi
a bout the end OF April Some attention was at
iracted TO Ford's bill because the belief was
prevalent that these corporations We're mshils sis
large profits in which the municipalities shoulo
have larger share. But the bin was not at that
time well understood. and no serious Thought OF
passing il arose until near the end of the ses-
sion.
CONFERENCE CALLED BY GOVERNOR
one DAY in April Governor Roosevelt called
conference TO consider the many penolng taA
bills All present. including Governor RooseNeit,
came TO the conclusion that the tax law ought
10 be amended. especially with reference TO cor
porations having great privileges but that noun
ing ought to be done except considerateiy ana
with understanding of the effect 1t was de-
s.ided to suspend bills on the subject until the
next session. 10 which commission snould re-
port Al almost the last day of the session.
without any notice Of change Of plan, the Gov
ernor called upon the legislature by special mes
sage 30 pass the Ford bill. Under our const1tu-
rional provision giving the Governor power TO
XIII without vetoing ali bills coming to him
within the last ten legislative days. the power
OF the Governor over the legislature at the end
Of the session is almost supreme. If he Is VIII
ing to that power he can pass or defeat al
most any measure. At that time several nun
lred bills were in his hands over whlch MS
power Of life and death absolute Many OF
these were local bills for which members hao
struggled through a long and wearisome ses-
sion. When the Governor. in effect, ordered the
legislature 10 pass the Ford bill, the Senate and
Assembly only registered his will. The hlli
passed INTO his hands and he had thlrty days III
which TO consider it
a protest naturally went up from every corr
-poration affected 1t was claimed that Ine
sudden action of the Governor was an interfer-
ence with the usual right OF interested parties
10 be heard. The companies also complained OF
the bill in several substantial particulars. 1t
f1- he New "
that the local political conditions IN that cltg
were such that the Ford dill would be lntoier-
able As it provided principle of valuine
street franchises. they could be valued by local
assessors, according TO their Wlli ana thelr VIII
would be Croker's will, which wouio always pe
measured by the corporations willingness and
ability to respond 20 his demands Many OF tne
companies complained also that the Ford olIl
contained no provision to equalize the buroehs
of those coupanies which were already paying
annual percentages for their privileges win
those that were paying nothing This omission
would amount 10 double taxation upon some
.,ornpanies At the hearing before Governor
Roosevelt he admitted the justice OF these
complaints, and recalled the legislature INTO
extra session to amend the blli IN tneSe anu
some other particulars. He recommended that
the mower of assessment be taken from the
local assessors and placed in the State boaro'
that amounts paid by corporations to munich
palities for their privileges under thelr con-
, tracts should be deducted from their iran
chise tax and also. that the rights and tauglb Die
property in the streets be taxed together by the
State board special franchises governor
! ser
session. while he still held the thirty day bills.
and he stated that he would sign the orlSlnal
Ford bill if the legislature failed TO pass the
amended bin. The amended bill passed
promptly
ENFORCEMENT OF TF'- LAW
The large corporations then generally recog-
nized the advisability of meeting public opinion
and paving more for their privileges. If the law
had been enforced reasonably and conserva-
iolat
obtained from the companies without resist
ance. The tax could probably have been IN
creased each year without inviting attack upon
the law But, naturally. the Governor wanted
his law TO appear important, and when the first
valuations Of The rights were announced. in the
spring Of 1900. they were such as TO astonish
even the trust busters Of that day. The assess
ment of the right of the Metropolitan system
WAS fixed at over J2e00oo0 imposing a tax
OF nearly S1,200.o90, public appropriation OF
about one-fifth of its average net earnings for
the previous three years
The companies were all heavily assessed. No
principle Of equality seemed to have been OBJ
served by the State commissioners. The cor
poTations applied TO the commissioners for i'll
formation to the evidence and methods by
which the valuations had been made. and the
commissioners arbitrarily refused TO give any
information. II became at once apparent that
true valuations had been made. and that the
valuations were all gGesses. In the course of
about three months the commissioners had made
some forty-seVen hundred valuations. without
having any knowledge Of the properties and
without having visited them. Properties that
experts could not have approximately valued in
days the commissioners had valued in minute.
Further consideration failed to bring forth any
reasonable method Of valuing intangible
,ight TO use street. separated from all the
other rights and property Of corporation. No
lawyer or business man has ever suggested any
logical and sensible method of making such
valuations The commissioners themselves,
when examined in the proceedings afterward in
stituted. admitted that their work was based
none of the principles usually applicable in
making valuations.
The corporations were right in objecting to
such assessments and in attacking the validity
of law which had been passed this was
and which exposed their property to such eno1-
NOUS arbitrary exactions- in the proceedings
against the law. counsel for the companies
raised these principal objections:
First-That the Special Franchise Tax law is
unconstitutional. in that il undertakes TO trans
fer 10 State authorities the function of assess
ing property. function which. under Article X
Section > could only be exercised by assessors
locally elected appointed
Second-That the assessments were invalid
because Of the methods or lack Of methods
adopted by the commissioners in making them
Third-That the commissioners had assessed
the separate franchises Of each corporation TO-
Eether instead of observing the requirement to
essess each franchise separately.
Fourth-That the law Was violative OF the
constitutional prohibition against the impair
rnent Of the obligation OF contracts.
Fifth-That the assessments were confessedly
st full values, whereas other real property in
New York City was valued at not to exceed 6I
per cent Of full value.
The officers of all corporations interested SO
FAR as l know. will approve and acquiesce in
some statute taxing their property and rights
justly equally and with reasonable certainty,
hut doubt whether the courts will ever uphold
euy law unless il includes these elements, nor
do believe that the people Of the State will
understandingly approve any Ford law