The weekly register. [volume] (Point Pleasant, Va. [W. Va.]) 1862-1909, 1906-09-26

the purposes of income and sale il
is also worth for the purposes ol
taxation" While this method il
in some respects different from the
first mentioned one; in reaching g
conclusion as to the value of pro.
perty by this method, many ele.
ments must be considered, which
must also be considered if the 6rst
mentioned method be adopted.
A third method, the one insisted
upon by appellants counsel, is
to only regard the value of the
physical property in the three
counties of Mason. jackson and
Roane. belonging t the Company
If the court adopts this method it
must only consider the value of
right of way. and other real pro.
perty and all personal property be-
longing to the Company. gradua.
tion and masonry. trestles and
bridges, main track. sidings, etc.
This method is the most unsatis
factory of the three. and can not in
the opinion of the court be adopted
in this case, because the true and
actual value of appellants proper
ties in question here cannot be as
certained and fixed if this method
be adopted. This method does
not allow the court to consider all
the elements of value, which, enter
into and make up the aggregate
value of appellants properties; and
if the court cannot consider all the
elements of value entering into ap
pellant's proI critics and make them
all the basis of the value as ascer-
tanned and fixed, the court cannot
arrive at the true and actual value
of the properties. Our constitu-
ton says that, "Taxation shall be
equal and uniform throughout the
state and all property, both real
and personal, shall be taxed in
proportion to it's value, to be as
certeined- -ss directed by law No
one speoies of property from which
tax may be collected. shall be
taxed higher than any other spe-
cies of property of equal value"
Now then it is manifest if we adopt
the method insisted upon by the
attorney for appellant, we will not
only have as result. less than the
true and actual values of the pro-
perties in question. but the con
stltutional rule of uniformity and
equality as between property own.
ers will be violated. Pursuing the
argument against this method q
little further, 1t MAY be stated that
if the right of way is donated to a
railroad company. the graduation
and masonry, owing to the smooth-
ness of the country costs but little
trestles and bridges cost but little,
the railroad, according to this
method, would be valued at much
less than one of equal length, whose
right of way cost many thousand
dollars and whose graduation,
masonry, trestles and bridges costs
double as much as those of the first
mentioned road; and this wonld
be 30 whatever right might be the
comparative net earnings of the
two roads or the comparative value
of the capital stock, because neith-
er the net earnings nor value of
the capital stock can be considered
in arriving at the value of the roads.
or either OF them.
There is fourth method which
has also been used in come cases.
According to this method the value
of railroad property is arrived at,
by capitalizing the net earnings of
the railroad or railroad system,
whose value is to be asoertained.
Wo are told thst We oapnot adopt
this method because there is no
evidence before the court showing
that the net earnings of the three
roads, the value of whose proper
ties are in question. are. This is
true if we regard them as separate
road. having no connection with
the b & o r. but if we regard
them as parts of the B. & 0, r
system and as being operated by
it, it is not true. II the court il
obliged to oonsidtr each of the
three roads separately and asce--
tain their values separately. it may
be sdmitted that no method can be
adopted, except the method sug-
gested by counsel for appellant