Vilas County news. [volume] (Eagle River, Vilas County, Wis.) 1896-1927, 1905-07-24

fee.
State Wins on All Points.
Judge Stevens ho1ds against the
railroad companies upon all points
raised upon the trial He holds that
the reports of the companies given
t. 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 it upon an intentional and viii
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 laid upon the cor
poration on account of it's 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 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 it's 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 specifcal-
ly exempted, and the franchises of
railroads are not exempted in section
1898, it was not the intention O 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 and
that such approval did not prevent the
! plaintiff from maintaining this action.
OF az IF he
liability of the defendant under the
statute depends on the meaning of the
pnrase neglect to pay the IL
cense fee therefor or any part thereof
as hereinfore provided This lam
guage has not been construed by the
Wisconsin court. It's meaning must
be gathered from the legislative intent
expressed in 1914 and other sections
dealing with the same or kindred sub
iects. The phrase admits of but Two
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 counsei.)
Other sections of the same chapter
throw ligslt on the legislative intent
expressed in the phrase or any part
thereof Section 1222a, in practically
the language of sections 1211-1214, re
to pay a license fee annually on or be-
fore February 10. There is no provis-
lob for deferred payment, yet, using
the words of section 1914, sc ton 122la
provides That for 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 1L42j in re-
Iatlon to an annual license fee re-
CURED to be paid before February l,
with no provision for deferred pay
ment (secs. 1222g-1222O.
IF the phrase or any part thereof
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 1222a and 1921.
The 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. The
question then arises. how is the
amount of such license fee to be deter
mined? Sections 1211-1214 first ap-
peared in substantially their present
form in the revision of 1878. 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