Vernon County censor. [volume] (Viroqua, Wis.) 1865-1955, 1905-07-26

omission of items from the report is
statute imposing the penalty does not
base it upon an intentional and will
full omission, but simply a neglect.
He holds that the statutes imposing
License fees are not in conflict With
the commerce clause of the federal
constitution, because they are not
taxes upon the receipts of the com
panies, but taxes aids upon the cor
poration on account of its property
and the amour of the tax simply is
measured and determined by refer
ence to the earnings made by the
use of such property. 1t is claimed
that even though this were so thai
the property was exempted by sec
ton 1898 of the statutes. The opin-
ion discusses the question and shows
that the license fee statute was
passed at the same time as the ex-
emption, and that the exemption was
only from taxation under the method
applied to the general property of the
state, and that the license fee scheme
took its place 1t is further held
that in the exemption statutes only
property of the railroads was ex-
empted and by comparison of the eX-
emption statutes as to street rail
roads, where franchises are specifical-
IL exempted. and the franchises of
railroads are not exempted in section
1898, it was not the intention the
Legislature to exempt from taxation
the franchises of the corporations.
and therefore the license fee may be
sustained as tax upon it's franchises.
The Opinion in Full.
The following is the opinion IN full:
after re-argument of the question
the court is still of the opinion that the
act of the railroad commissioner in
endorsing MS approval on the report
of the railroad is ministerial act ana
that such approval did not .revent the
plaintiff from maintaining this action.
CONSTRUCTION of Section 1914 The
liability of the defendant under the
statute depends on the meaning of the
p1rase neglect to pay the IL
cense fee therefor or any part thereof
as hereinfore provided This Ian
gUage has rot been construed by the
Wisconsin court. Its meaning must
be gathered from the legislative intent
expressed in 1914 and other sections
dealing with the same or kindred sub
jects. The phrase admits of but +wo
constructions. Either the amount of
the license fee is fixed by the return
and the phrase or any part thereof
refers wholly to the deferred payment
to be made in August, or the defendant
is liable for the penalty (unless it is
relieved of this liability by acting in
good faith on the advice of counsel)
Other sections of the same chapter
throw liglt on the legislative intent
expressed in the phrase or any part
thereof Section 12z2a, in practically
the language Of sections 1211-1214, re-
quires those operating telephone lines
to pay license fee annually on or be-
fore February 10. There is no provis-
ion for deferred payment. yet, using
the words of section 1914, sc ton 122la
provides That. for a neglect to obtain
such license or pay such license fee
or any part thereof there shall be for
feited to the state $4,000. The same
phrase is used in section Iii in re
lstion to an annual license fee re-
CURED to be paid before February l,
with no provision for a deferred pay
ment (secs. 1222g.1222D.
49,, y,br ,-,AraoF
as used In section 1914 is to be given
the construction contended for by de.
PENDANT it can have no force or effect
whatever in sections 1924 and 1921.
Tine court concludes that the phrase
refers to the failure to pay any part
of the license fee which the railroad
ought to have paid to the state. TIE
question then arises. how is the
amount of such license fee to be deter
mired? Sections 1211-1214 first ap-
peared in substantially their present
form in the revision of 1873 From
1854 down TO the revision of 1878 every
law enacted and every revision made
expressly provided that the amount
OF the gross earnings should be ascer-
tanned by such return. By striking
our this provision that the gross earn,
ings were to be ascertained by such
return the legislature has clearly ex.
pressed its intent that the amount of
the. license fee vas no longer to be de-
termined wholly from the return. The
other changes made at the same time
are in accord WITH the intent so ex-
pressed.
There is nothing Ia the statute as
it now stands that is contrary to this |
manifest intent of the Legislature. |
The only amount mentioned is the
true s Itement of the gross earnings
The whole legislative plan is based on |
the assumption that the return SHALL !
contain such true statement. On tne /
railroad is placed the duty and the re-
sronsibility Of making sucn true re-
turn. This return in substance takes |
the place Of the sworn statement |
waica the individual taxpayer IS rel
quired to make as the basis for The as
sessment Of ais taxes (sec. 1850. As |
in the case Of the individual gsec |
1o5ea). so in the case Ct the railroad
(sec. 1910, a penalty is imposed fof |
failure to make 4 true statement
Knowingly Omitted Earnings.
1T appears from the facts stipulated