The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1905-07-03

fttioh SlHtH W eucn contracts pyl Inc
Supreme Court.
We may rely upon the case Of Har.
iyey Coal and Coke Company against
c. w. Dilloi, Tax Commissioner, for
the final decision of the question Of
whether or not chattels real are tax
liable under the assessment act Of
1905. 1t is plain that prior to the act
of 1905. there was no law in terms tax
ing chattels real, and It is also true
that they have not heretofore been
taxed. But by the act OF 1905, they are
made taxable. This is the construc-
ton given to this act by the Supreme
Court in the case of Harvey Coal and
Coke Company. The question was
raised in that case, as it is here, that
Einasmuch as Sec. II OF that act, pro.
yidins for assessments of corporations
does not include in terms chattels
real and especially that after having
stated in detail by items the property
upon which corporations shall pay
taxes, and expressly providing that
this shall constitute all the property
on which any ouch corporations
should be assessed Whatever may be
the true history OF this legislation, or
why the words chattels real were
omitted from Section II we can only
conjecture. 1t is very plain that read.
ing the act as whole, It was the in
sention OF the Legislature to tax as
personal property chattels real. 1t Is
more consistent with the entire act
TO read the words "chattels real" into
Section n than 1t Is to read them out
Of Section 10S. One of these sections
Is wrong. 1t Is safer to conclude that
Section los is right because It is con.
sistent with all osher parts of the act
except Section n. 1t can scarcely be
presumed that the Legislature intend.
ed to tax individuals and firms with
chattels real but not to tax them to
corporations, and yet this would be
true II Sections II and IS are to be
construed as excluding. chattels real
as subjects for taxation when held by
corporations. In the Harvey Coal and
Coke Company case the Supreme
Court reached the conclusion that the
words chattels real were omitted from
Section II by mistake or oversight. It
Is more than probable that in view of
the fact that these words appeared
in previous and subsequent sections
of the act that It was not deemed
necessary to insert them in section n.
At any rate the Supreme Court has
settled the question, and corporations
must pay taxes on their chattels real
just as individuals and firms pay.
1t is also insisted that taxing leases
cEattels real Is double taxation, and
therefore repugnant to our constitu.
ton which requires taxation 10 be
equal and uniform. The same thing
should not be taxed twice at the same
time. The title by which 1t is held
may lie separated and every person
required to pay taxes on the interes.
held by him, and so in the aggregate
the whole and no more would be taxed.
In the case at bar the oil and gas in
place belong to Jesse King the leasor,
and he should pay the taxes on them
as real estate, that Is, as part of his
freehold. The valuation placed upon
them will be fixed with reference to
the fact that they are far beneath the
surface and that he has contracted to
give rs of the oil to plaintiff for bring
ing 1t to the surface. The plaintiff
must pay tax on this right which 1t
has of bringing the gas and oil to the
surface. 1t will thus readily appear
that Mr.. King and the plaintiff are to
be assessed on two entirely different
things. Kings title to the oil contin-
ues until it is run into the tank or
pipe line and it becomes personal es-
tate. Here the relation of lessor and
lessee terminates and the relation OF
joint owners of personal property be-
gins. The oil and gas when brought
to the surface is the producers finish
ed product. The lessor parts with his
title to the real estate as soon as it
reaches the surface. He owns, then.
jointly with the lessee the oil, and re-
ceives pay for his gas by the year at
SO much per well. One very good way
to ascertain whether taxation is equal
by comparing the relative value of
the properties owned by two or more
taxpayers before the assessments are
made aaginst them, and their relative
values with the tax charges upon
them. If the relative values have
been changed by the tax, then there
lis uneuunl tayation In tba case -