New-York tribune., 1903-04-09
A CHARACTERISTIC EXHIBITION.

David r. Hill has something of reputation
as a lawyer but his course must be disappoint-
ing for his clients who pay him large sums for
presenting legal arguments TO judges who are
superior TO the slangwhanging and appeals TO
passions which sometimes influence jurors.
There can be no possible impropriety in COM
rnenting on Mr.. Hills performance before the
Court OF Appeals when the franchise tax
cases were being considered there, for his re-
marks which are commented on had no rela-
ton TO the question to be decided by thar
tribunal. They were not a legal argument ad-
dressed TO the court, but political harangue
addressed 10 the public Just Mr.. Hill when
he was retained for the prosecution In the Moli-
neux case had the assurance to ask the Court
Of Appeals TO sustain the conviction, not mainly
on the ground of its legality. but on the ground
that he thought Molineux guilty, so now he de-
votes himself less TO proving the law uncon-
stitutional than TO depouncing its wisdom and
abusing those who passed it.
IT is little odd-Or IL would be II he were
not so well known as an artful dodger-to fnd
David r. Hill denying the responsibility OF the
corporations for the State assessments Of fran
chises and representing il as the invention Of
Governor Roosevelt. There has long been a
well defined suppression that at the hearing
after the passage OF the original Ford bill David
B. Hill himself suggested the change 10 avoid
the possible injustice of duplicating the taxation
OF franchises running through two Jurisdictions.
He has denied that, but he was at the hearing
as a representa- tive Of protesting corporations.
and at least his associates made the sugges-
sions and Mr.. Hills own argument was largely
devoted to painting the evils which corporations
would suffer from the blackmailing Of local
Tammany assessors-he was then at odds with
thQ franchise Y
as crude and imperfect. and attempts to convey
the idea that il is revolutionary, though ar the
,frne of the massage OF the original bill Edward
Isauterbach counsel for the Third Avenue Rail-
road frankly admitted: 1.-The Ford bill puts Us
.9back where we were before the decision rem
"dered by the Court of Appeals in the case of
.the Union Trust Company''-that is, TO a basis
of taxation which prevailed till a chance de-
cision held that franchises could not be included
in real estate assessments by the wording of
the law under which they had been so assessed
without opposition for forty years Roswell P.
Flower at that time declared that the bill was a
..sfep IN the right direction" and he was
street railway man and enough Of an expert
enced statesman for Mr. Hill TO make him Gov
ernor though he complains that Governor
Roosevelt was without experience
OF course. IT does not make any difference
whether Governor Roosevelt had experience or
not He may have been a veritable bull IN the
china shop OF tax legislation crowd of wild
eyed anarchists may have clamored for this BILL
/. may be the height Of economic folly. None
of these things matter They have nothing TO
do with the issue are no business Of the Court
of Appeals. and it was q confession Of weak
ness on the part of Mr. Hill TO intrude them
into the courtroom. The sole question at issue
81 the consdtutionality Of the law. Practically