Omaha daily bee., 1903-02-21

district taxes. The Burlington railroad and
the Atchison Nebraska railroad asked
TO have the collection OF the taxes en-
Joined for two reasons.
First-That the west half Of the bridge
was q part Of the main line OF their road
and as such subject to taxation by the
State Board Of Equalization only.
Second-Thst II not subject to taxation
by the state board u was not within the
corporate limits Of either the school dis
tricts, village or city Uf Rulo. and. hence,
not subject to taxation on account OF those
political subdivisions
The village Of Rulo claimed that the
bridge was in the corporate limits Of
the city and school district. And that
the law creating the State Board Of Equal
ization was unconstitutional insofar as IL
authorized that board TO ..ssess the west
half Of the bridge for any other purpose
other than that Of the state taxes. and
that the assessment Of the bridge by the
local assessor was valid.
state Assessment Illegal.
In concluding their brief the attorneys
for the appellants said: THE questions
here presented have never been called to
the attention Of the court before. so far as
the reported decisions disclose. That they
are questions OF paramount Importance
must be conceded We think that the
method OF assessing railroad property in
this state IL in fragrant violation Of the
provisions OF our constitution and that q
full and thorough consideration OF the case
will lead your honors to the same conclu-
sion. We insist that the statute Of which
we complain was passed for the purpose
and with the intention Of doing indirectly
that which the legislature could not do di-
recty viz. Of exempting a railroad prop
erty from its Just share OF taxation for
municipal school and county purposes.
This law was never passed for the public
Good, but at the instance and urgency Of
railroad companies for their own benefit.
Well does the writer remember that when
an attempt was made in the legislature Of
1887 to have the charter Of the city OF
Omaha so drafted that railroad property
within the city would be required to pay
its Just share Of taxes toward the support
of the city government and school district
| the representatives and friends Of every
railroad in the state we're arrayed against
IT and It was defeated, notwithstanding its
! evident Justice.
I'VE cannot conclude this brief bette.
than by quoting the language OF Judge Beck
of the supreme court Of Iowa, in Passing
| upon a statute, in principle, the same as
| the one which we are criticising:
The object and design of the statute
| in question is to exempt railroad corpora
! tions from taxation equal to that borne by
individuals. Inequality is intended and
{ provided for unequivocally by carefully
prepared provisions that could have nc
! other purpose in the mind OF the legisla-
/ ture. II is not an incident that could not
| be avoided but is an object carefully pro-
| vided for in the statute. 1t cannot by any
/ fairness be claimed that real estate and
personal property OF railroad corporations
I connected with the use OF the road cannot
/ be made subject to taxation the same as
/ like property OF individuals There is moi
! the least difficulty in providing a system
Of taxation which in its theory at least
shall impose a burden upon such property
equal to that provided for the property o.
! individuals. The argument then bas,C
| upon necessity fails and seems but to ex-
pose the injustice OF the statute and it:
conflict with the constitution
The courts OF Richardson county granted
the Injunction and the people have asked
the supreme court to set aside the decision
! of the lower court