New-York tribune., 1903-04-29
e State Board to the local tax officials:
NOT FEDERAL QUESTION.
Prominent Corporation LazOyer Sees
No Hope for appeal.

The Court of Appeals decision upholding the
Ford Franchise law saves the city S5O00OO0 a.
year, ard will enable the municipality. If the
United States Supreme Court sustains the de-
cision to collect tax arrearages Of about S15,-
100000 and interest at per cent for three
years, amounting to additional S3,OO0OO0.i
A prominent corporation lawyer, who declined
TO allow his name to be used, but who has
been familiar with traction cases. after hearing
the statement Of W. H. Page, for the Metro
politan, that the will be appealed to the
United States court, said that he saw no hope
for such an appeal
There Is absolutely no federal question in
volved in this matter that I see.' said he.
From the news I have received I understand
that the Court of Appeals has upheld the con-
stitutionality of the law in its entirety. The
companies will now have to pay their taxes.
both the arrears and the current amounts. and.
as far as I can see. will not be able to appeal"
There is a strong probability. toe. that the
corporations will have to pay the usual penalty
of ! per cent in addition TO the 4 per cent in
terest for failing 10 pay their taxes annually be-
tween October 1 and January L The penalty
for non-payment contains the following:
If any tax is not paid before the first day Of De-
6ePo2e the first ay Of January interest is Charged
the books are delivered to the Receiver of Taxes
lOntrOli6r
Tax Board say that if the law had not been
upheld SO. 100000 would have been cut from the
borrowing capacity of the city.
William H. Page, jr, counsel for the Metro
rolitan Street Railroad Company, said last night
that the case would now be taken to the United
States Supreme Court.
1T is the intention of the company. as 1t al
wevs has been. TO carry the matter to the Su-
preme Court of the United States said Mr..
Page. after receiving word from Albany that the
decision was adverse to the corporations The
case will be appealed on the following grounds:
That tbe SnecaI Franchise act is a violation OF
the provisions of the federal constitution; that II
is A violation of the home rule provisions OF the
Stare constitution; that street franchises acquired
bv consolidation should have been assessed sepa-
rately. and not as one franchlse Inat me 0tdI ,
Board of Tax Commissioners did not ADOPT any
certain or fixed rule in making the assessments
that proper hearing was given me relaIors al
parted as TO the basis, theory. rule or principe
ment that the REALTORS did have due process OF
law in taxation of their property tnat tne acI
is impracticable, and therefore nulity; tnat tne
property of the REALTORS was assessed at rate
equal TO I GEMS MS on +et % in the same tax district
was assessed at much lower rate
THE underlying principles in contracts as
argued in the famous Dartmouth College
case. by Daniel Webster are involved TO some
extent" said Mr.. Page, who, by consent or the
combined counsel argued the case before the
Appeild1e
argument on the theory that his defendant
cornpanv could not be taxed twice for the same
thing. When the case came before the Court Of
Appeals the argument made by David b
Hill and ex-Justice Brown. Some of the counsel
interested in the case were Professor Collin. or
Sheehan & Collin. for the Brooklyn Heights
Railroad Company; Frank H Platt for the Con-
solidated Gas Company, John c. Tomlinson and
Beardsley & Hemmens for other companies.
D w. McWiIliams secretary and treasurer OF
the Manhattan Railway Company. said
The Manhattan Railway Company does not con
side he decision by means nnai IN our case.
as II has yet been tried and there are specai
facts and circumstances connected herewith which
will distinguish II from the cases decided to-day
by the Court of Appeals. and We believe VIII LEAD
10 large reduction in its Special Franchise taxes
Henry A Robinson. general attorney for the
Interurban Street Railway Company. said:
I have not yet received a copy of the opinion OF
the Court of Appeals. and in its absence cannot
state whether the passed upon all the ques-
tioDs raised or only upon that of the constitu-
tfonalitv of the The decision OF the Court or
Appeals does not by any means determine the Hti-
Preparation has been made to carry on
the proceedings. and the final decision OF the
ton.
Mayor Low much gratified over the de-
cision Several months ago." said he, after
reading the opinion of the Appellate Division
Continued second page
-