The evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1907-1908, 1907-08-07

looah- 0~bCh4 dIDl tOtdl CDlluAAAolos pAt
the benefits OF local government pre-
sumably vary in the like proportion. Rail-
road and canal companies are in this re-
spect now placed upon the same footing
with other taxpayers. Secondly, because
the percentage of the entire property of
each company that is with the second
class varies as between different COM
pan.es. It is pointed out that of the prop
erty of the Trenton and New Brunswick
Railroad Company. substantially all is
main stem. while of the property OF the
Long Dock Company more than half Is
second-class property. If this Is a valid
objection. then assuming a tax law levying
one rate upo: each horse and another
rate upon each cow were in other respects
valid. 1t would be rendered non-uniform,
and therefore unconstitutional by the cir
cumstanee that one man owned more
horses than cows. while his %neighbor
owned more cows than horses.
"Upon the whole. therefore. we entertain
no doubt that the legislation of 1906 pre-
seribes uniform rules for taxation. with
In the constitutional intendment.
us the third of our constitutional re-
quirements-the adoption of the standard
of true yalue'-excluded or rendered i'm
possible Of attainment by the necessary
operation Of this Legislation? No more so,
we think, than was the case with the
previous legislation that has been
tudicially sustained. The adoption of diff
ferent agencies for making the valuations,
with different supervisors and review, GER
tainly does not exclude 1t, for all agencies
and tribunals are to be guided by the same
standard.
mo is the problem of valuing the road
bed separately from the superintendent
structure and the structure separately
from the roadbed either novel or insoluble.
1t Is a common inc most usual practice
for real estate experts, In computing the
valuation of improved real estate of any
kind, to estimate separately, first, the land
as 1t would be worth If vacant, and then
the buildings and other Improvements, and
to combine these estimates in order to
arrive at the value of the whole. " 4"
There is nothing, therefore, in the legis-
lation before us that excludes-nothing, in
deed, to interfere with-the standard of
true value"
Justice Pftney adds: Having settled the
questions thus far discussed, by showing
that the laws under consideration do not
deprive the taxpayer of his property with
out due process of law, and that they
comply with the mandate of our own
constitution respecting the assessment of
property for taxes, 1t follows that they do
not deny to the prosecutors or any per-
son the equal protection of the laws
The law to whose equal protection they
are entitled, is that very provision of our
constitution which requires that property
shall be assessed for taxes under general
laws, and by uniform rules, according to
its true value But the operation of this
provision is of necessity subject to the
and power of the Legislature TO
reasonably classify property for purposes
of taxation. And the United States
Court holds the same view de-
clared by our own court of last resort,
- - Ill a. 4
property nationally set apart in a class,
irrespective of the ownership. OF such prop
erty, satisfy such a constitutional pro-
vision" After quoting a number Of de-
under review should be affirmed. with
costs"
JUDGE FORTS OPINION.
There were three points to be de-
cided by the Supreme Court. One was
to the irrepealability of the charter
exemptions of the United Railroads of
New Jersey, now the terminal part of
the Pennsylvania Railroad system. A
was as to the constitutionality
of the Perkins railroad tax act of 1906,
and the third related to the charter
exemptions of the Morris Canal and
Banking Company. The latter point is
not covered by the decisions, and will
be decided later. For the railroads in
the litigation were Richard ". Linda
bury and James B. vreeland, ard for
the State Bennet Van Syckel, John r.
Hardin and Attorney-General McCar-
ter. The Judges who heard the argu-
ment were Justices Fort, Pitney and
Hendrickson. Justice Fort wrote the
opinion on the irrepealability Of the
charter exemptions and Justice Pitney
on the constitutionality of the Perkins
act.
The decision of Justice Fort overs
the question of the irrepealability of the
contracts with the State in the char
tiers of the United Railroad Companies,
now Incorporated in the Pennsylvania
Railroad system, with respect to taxa
ton. These charters provided for
transit duties which were afterwards
changed by agreement to a tax of one
half of one per cent. on the railroad
property. The syllabus of the decision
reads as follows:
First-That by the transit act of
1863, the i~rrepealable contracts CON
tanned In the original charters of he
several railroad and canal companies
composing the United New Jersey Rail-
road and Canal Company, fixing transit
duties In lieu Of other taxes, were
abolished.
Second-Thnt, If the act of 1860
created any cOntruct, upon it's accept
ance by the United Companies, 1t was
a contract to pay the specific tax mem
toned I'm that net, or such other tax
as should be imposed upon the proper
ty of NIL railroad and canal %cOrpora
lions.
Third-That the net of 1884, ms re-
vised In 1888, and the acts of 1905 and
D o tall supra), are general laws,
within the requirements of the net
Fourth-That n state tax Is any tax
imposed by Legislative authority,
whether assessed directly by the state
itself, or by an agency of the State.
FIfth-That the taxation imposed
under the act of 1884, Ms revised and
amended In the acts of 1888 and 1905,
and canal property segregated by the
Legislature for taxation, Il a uniform
state tax.
This result leads to an afirmance of
the tax brought mp, either under or
irrespective of any c-OntractunI relation
which mny exist between the state
and the prosecutors under the net of
1869.
Justice Fort reviews the various leg
islative acts relating to the charters
and taxes of the railroad companies in
this State h a are now a part Of the
Pennsylvania Railroad system. He
quotes the provisions of the various
laws passed prescribing the manner in
which the railroads should pay the tax,
These acts begun in 1880, when the Del
aware and Raritan Canal Company
was Incorporated, with a provision that
IL should nav a transit dnfv~ on each