The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1906-08-29

PT. .tPl9EASANEIr W., vas, s&Au5' A'i' AS''i
At 2.15 O'Clock yesterday afternoon
General Manager Thomas Fitzgerald,
of$the Baltimore & Ohio railroad, took
the witness stand in the appeal case.
against the State Board Of Public
Works, assessment, and when he con-
icIuded with the adjournment at i've
O'Clock he had talked altogether about
i've minutes, for the clashtngs be-
tween counsel Wesley Molohan, for
the railroad, and Tax Commissioner
Dillon and Governor Dawson, for the,
State, consumed mostyof the time. The
point at issue is of course the alleged
excessiveness OF the States assess
ment of the B. & o. property in jack
son, Roane and Mason counties. The
State board put 1t at $4,060,S1S. and
the railroad contends 1t should be
s497, ,52T. Involved are the Ohio River.
railroad, the Ravenswood, Spencer &
Glenville and Ripley & Mtllcreek VAL
ley branches.
TheiB. & o. counsel is endfayortng
to show that the roads are separate
corporations and should have been as
sessed separate and apart from the
b. & o., and that the other two lines
are money losers. The B. & Q. not
only objects to the entire assessment
but wants the assessments segregated /
as against the branches, while the
state a6lds that the 81. ,& Of property, !.
wherever found, should be assessed
against the B. & o. corporation. It is
thought in soma quarters that Judge
Parsons will decide that the other
roads should have been assessed
against the o. r. R. R, Co. II he does
not, however reduce the assessment
the State will not protest. II flna1ly
he upholds the boards assessment and
.dfsallows the segregation, the Ohio
River railway may appeal But how
is the Ohio. River railway to appeal
when it is not a party to the brnceed-
ings? No assessment was recorded
against it and this alleged separate
corporation did not make return to
the board, did not protest against the
assessment heretofore and is not now
in court The foregoing illustrates
the trend OF the legal battle. The TAX
ing of testimony began yesterday
morning, but it was not lucid or en-
Tightening.
The First Witness.
The first witness was M. W. Vena-
BILE, a civil engineer of Charleston,
who gave expert opinions as to the'
valuation Of the Ohio River railway.
physical property. He estimated it at
$12,34O mile. The state assessed it
at $4,000 mile. but included the In
tangible values such as the franchise
consideration.
Attorney Wesley Mollohan gave no.
tice that he would contest the taxing
of the franchise value as unwaranted
by legislative enactment, although the
State Constitution had made proyi-
slons for such law
s. D, Brady, civil engineer, and e.
b. Fitchman. the railroads chief engi-
neer. both Of Parkersburg, testified
similarly to Engineer yenable.
w. w. vanwinl1le. PaEkersburg at
toruey for the b G O.. said he was
director in the Ohio River road and
that as a separate institution It was
still intact. He said he held only one;
share of stock and was also a director
In the Rayenswood, Spencer. & Glen
Vile, and was attorney for all three
that Oscar G. Murray. prssidenttof the
b. & o., was president also Of the
three branch roads interested in the
case. He thought there was some out
side Ohio River stock but did not
know Of any.
Witnesses Know Nothing.
G. b. Bryan. OF Parkersburg. super
intendsnt Of the Ohio River division,
was unable to tell anything Of the
earnings or operative expenses Of the
Glenvllle anl Ripley branches.
s. E. Bogges, who was prosecuting
attorney Of Roane county, was brought
forward to show that the Glehyills
road was heavily ii debt in the year
1897. He also responded that his law
Lhrm, Pendleton Roeess: was the
local counsel now 81 the road.
General Mana ser f,ite gerald was the
next and last " 6f Stll z conp
fktfS iaS a ~ 5at6l - ~ In ~ Z -