Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1905-07-20

fee.
State Wins on All Points.
Judge Stevens hords against the
railroad companies upon all points
raised upon the trial. He holds that
the reports of the companies given
to the railroad commissioner of the
amount of their gross earnings, and
the approval of such report by the
commissioner did not bind the state
TO the amount, but that the actual
amount could be aScertained. He
holds that advice of counsel as to the
omission of items from the report is
no defense for the reason that the
statute imposing the penalty does not
base 1t upon an intentional and vii.
| full omission but simply neglect.
He holds that the statutes imposing
License fees are not in conflict w4th
| constitution, because they are not
taxes upon the receipts of the com.
panies, but taxes laid upon the cor.
| poration on account of its property,
and the amount 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 that
| the property was exempted by sec.
! ton 1888 of the statutes. The opin.
ION discusses the question and shows
that the license fee statute was
| ~
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 stainless 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.
ly 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 a tax upon its 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 mis- approval on the report
Of the railroad Is ministerial act ana
that such approval did not prevent the
plaintiff from maintaining this action
Construction of Section 1914. The
| liability Of the defendant under the
statute depends on the meaning of the
pnrase neglect to :. pay tne IL.
cense fee therefor or any part thereof
as hereinfore provided This Ian
guage has not 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 pnrase or any part thereof
refers wholly to the deferred payment
is liable for the penalty funless It IS
relieved of this liability by acting In
good faith on the advice of counsel
Other sections Of the same chapter
throw light on the legislative intent
expressed in the phrase or any part
thereof Section 1222a, In practically
the language Of sections 1211-12fs, re-
quires those operating telephone lines
70 pay license fee annually on or be.
fore February TO- There is no proyis.
ion for deferred payment. yet, using
the words Of section 1911, Sc ton 122ze
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 Xxi in re.
lation TO an annual licengo foo re.
CURED to be paid before FEBRUARY |.
with no provision for deferred nav.
ment (secs. 1222g-1222D.
II tle phrase or any part thereof
as used in section 1914 Is TO be given
the construction contended for by de.
fendant 1t can have no force or effect
whatever in sections 1222a and 1920.
the court concludes that the phrase
refers to the failure to pay any par,
Of the license fee which the railroad
ought to have paid to the state. TIE
question then arises. how fl the
amount Of such license fee to be deter
mined? Sections 121l.1214 first ap-
peared in substantially taeir present
form in the revision Of 1878 From
1854 down to the revision II 1875 every
Law enacted and every revision made
expressly provided that the amount
o. the gross earnings should be aseer.
tanned by such return. By striking