New-York tribune., 1903-04-07
THE FRANCHISE CASES Up
ARGUMENTS At ALBANY
Cunmeen Defends the Lasc-Com-
NAMES Counsel 4ss0il 1t.

Albany. April e-The appeal of the State from
the decision Of the Appellate Division, Third De-
partrnent in the cases involving the validity
OF The Special Franchise Tax law, came up Tor
argument to-day in the Court of Appeals Attor-
uey General Cunneen. alone representing the peo-
rle onened the case. Seven corporations are con-
cerue6 as follows: The Metropolitan Street Rail-
way Company Coney Island and Brooklyn Kali
road COMPANY Brooklyn City Railroad Company
Consolidated and Amsterdam Gas companies
Tp-entv-third Street Railway Company and Central
Crosstown Railroad Company. All the cases IN
volve the validity Of certain portions Of Chapfer
-I2 OF the Laws of 1899 which subject TO taxation
special franchises which are defined as the
rights OF street railroad gas pipe line. telegraph
and telephone companies and similar pubic service
corporations. I'm TIE public streets and places
Attorney General Cunneen. referring 10 the i'm
portanoe Of the cases. showed that the taxes al
ready levied under the law amounted in three
years to nearly slsg30eo Of which Ns,2l426S was
assessed in the city Of New-Yerk. nearly Ss9e""
in Erie County. s344 coo in Monroe s26oeeo in onon-
dsss 500 in chester. S29-5s2 in Albany ana
sa4 Enn in Rensselaer, IF the corporations should
succeed in defeating the lew, said he. these
enormous amounts viii be assessed upon the prop
erty of individuals and corporations other thah
special franchises
y- Crnneen disnuted the claim that taxing the
right 70 use the streets the contract under
which the right granted. on the ground tha'
purchase money is not the same as taNatioh' 'hat
the conditions on which such grant is made are
IN the nature ~ consideration. similar to the
money which the State receives when II sells pun
lie lands TO an individual that the tax Imposed Is
rot a consideration for the grant but Is 10 meet
the needs o. government in protecting the enjoy
rent Of the grant.
With reference 10 the contention thaf II is I'M
rrsctioahle 70 fix the value Of special franchise
M C7nneen peinted that these franchises are
bought sold and leased If il is practicable to
determine their value for the purposes Of censol-
Cation and to effect monopoly in the business Of
transportation and in the stock market II Is equal
" p~s crca bic their value for purposes
Of taxation he said.
He denied that law violated the home rule
rroyisiors Of the State constitution. contendln6
that the assessment Of the State Tax Commission
ers was subject amendment by the local as
SCISSORS II was competent for the legislature 10 fix
rules nx which local assessors should he governed
and the Tax Commissioners were for this purpose
merely auxiliary the local assessors He fur-
ther cortcnded that even il it were found that the
Tax Commissioners had jurisdiction in the mat
ter. the law provi5ed complete apparatus Tor
this taxation through the local assessing machin-
Tne claim of the corporations. Mr. Cunneen
argued rested upon purely abstract and techni-
cal proposition He asserted that they had no real
grievance. their property was SUBJECT 70 tlis
assessment. that IT put ultimately on the
proper books by the proper officers and for the
oarrert amount They had right. he Contended
10 evade the payment Of their Just dues to the
State merely because the State Tax Commissioners
took some part in the steps leading up to the as
sessnnent. which part not vitaliy necessary 10
is accomplishment To the contention that some
Of the corporations received their franchises by
consolidation in nstanlents, and 10 assess them as
= whole WAS an error. since each separate original
franchise should he separately assessed the Attor-
rev General replied that they are properly assess
able for property which they possess winch II mas
II the condition in which they possess and en-
Joy it.
AR14-uF>cTs FOR TIE COMPANIES
r7x-7udee charles F. Brown for the Metropolitan
Street Railway Company. followed Mr. Cunneen-
He dDelt az length the home rule provision OF
the State constitution whose intent he SAID was
70 preserve 10 the electors of localities the right to
control local government The legislature had no
rorer sch as this Law sought exercise, 70 trans
fer 10 an official appointed by the Governor the
roper tc exercise local official functions he
rfdiru1ed IS hardly worthy Of serious considera-
tiort' rhe States claim that the part Of the Tax
Commissioners in the assessment was only Incl
dental and thar she assessment was really and
finally made by local officers The duty Of the
local assessors said he 70 place the valuations
fixed hv the State Board upon the assessment rolls
is ministerial solelythe whole theory Of the spe
cjal franchise tax Law IS give the power Of as
sessinz that property TO the State Board Of Tax
Commissioners and that body is the only tribunal
authorized 20 give hearing parties assessed
intangible franchises we're never assessaole un1il
the passage Of this act. and the assessment com,
plsined Of does rot reprsSen, the 5aaglel' 'l oed
The second main contention of Judge Brown was
taf
an the special franchises a single franchise
The Netronolitan system. he declared. was COM
POSED Of several formerly independent corpora
Jaons. AID the franchises owned and controlled ny
fhe COMPANY should have been assessed separately
n a. ali Indeed he asserted that the statute spe
rsfcali1 called for this manner Of assessment.
William n Page. for the TwentY-third Street and
Central Cr,eSsroWn companies. argued that not only
bsz the function OF assessment been exclusively
local in the whole history of the State but il has
been egpressIy decided he secured to the local
tties under the constitution The theory that the
state may deprive localities Of this function to
limited extent he denied on grounds both Of con-
srirurional principle and Of decisions. The con
tertion thai the S0-cal}e special fran ehise def
milton constituted species of property partly
frtanzble and localized. and warranted its
seSsrnent t5 State official Mr.. Page denied. The
before really involve he said
THE question whether the localities have con
sfltutional local government. If the function
of assessing property for purposes Of general tax
alton can he taken from the localities there Is no
function which he taken away. for the office
If assessor is historically perfect example of an
exclusively local function cf government. The
special franchise by depriving the local
ff5es ~ their control the assessment Of prop
erfx sI ated within their limits. strikes at the very
roots Of local self-gOVernTnent-'
Mr. Page still arguing when the court ad-
1cufned ulIn p. N. tomorrow He VII Hbsh his
ara1lraent and he followed bH Frank H Platt- II
Is that the 3ill occupy the court all
Of ro-rrorraV's sitting Attorney General Cunneen
viii reply for the State, and ex-senator Hill, as
general counsel for the corporations, will closH the
argument