Omaha daily bee., 1907-03-05

liar reasoning was applied TO a nudge In |
FayerweatheT against Ritch 1876 u S. 276, |
so6. So. multitude Of asses will be found |
collected in 4 Wigmore, Evidence, par. ES, |
8f9 All the often repeated reasons for |
doubled force to the attempt by exhibiting |
on cross-examination the confusion OF the |
ceeding the Judgment OF lay tribunal
which is Intended. so far as may pc 70 De
final, notwithstanding mistakes OF taet OF
law. See Coulter against Louisville q |
Nashville Railroad Company, 1886 U. 8. 599, |
go: Central Pacific Railroad company
seniS 6s C eaforna ~ 5 sea- St State
Tax Cases, % Y. s SIS; Cleveland Ci Gorn
pany against Backus. 1873 Ind 5l3, 542 In
Fargo against Hart. 1893 U. s. 49O, $50, isi,
there was no serious dispute as to what
was the principle adopted.
Again this board necessarily kept and
evidently was expected by the statutes 10
at least. of its decisions and acts III the
roads he'd wished express ruling by the
board upon the deductions which they DE,
could have asked TO have the action of the
] board or It's refusal TO act noted In the
| been made and refused. See Fargo agalns'
Hart, 1893 u. s, $40. 49S; Cleveland Cincinnati,
| against Backus 1873 Ind 5l3. 5i2 Havemeyer
against board Of Review. ZOE Illinois i66
However, as the foregoing objections were
not urged. and as the cases were discussed
| upon all the testimony, we shall proceed
\ to consider them In the same way.
| The facts that appear from any source
| are few. The Board voted first. as a pre-
| liminary step toward ascertaining the ac-
| tual value of all property to be assessed
to make gu estimate of the tangible prop
| erty OF the railroads, to be taken as one
of the factors in making UP the total
| sessment of the roads. Schedules were pre-
pared. and il is objected that the board
| added twenty-five per cent to certain Items
| as furnished by the companies. If this be
| true and II Is not admitted that any fig
ures were more than tentative, the add;
Judgment and ON a theory that the values
I given were the values the property was in
sured for. II mistaken. a mistake does not
affect the case. The main point comes on
| the final assessment, to which we turn at
once
Board Expresses Result.
The board expressed its result in another
| vote. Having given full and due con-
| sideration to the returns furnished said
| board by the several railroad companies,
| and having taken into consideration the
| main track, sidetrack, spur tracks, ware
! house tracks, roadbed, right-of-way and
| depot grounds, and all water and fuel sta
| TONS buildings and superstructures there
on, and all machinery, rolling stock, tele-
| graph lines and instruments connected
| herewith, all material on hand and sup
plies, moneys. credits, franchises and all
| other property of said railroad companies,
and having taken into consideration the
gross and net earnings of said roads, the
total amount expended in operation and
maintenance, the dividends paid, the capital
stock of each system or road and the mar
ket value thereof and the total amount of
secured and unsecured indebtedness (we) do
hereby ascertain and fix for the purposes
age value per mile and the assessable value
per mile of the several roads as follows"
The roads supplemented the record by
evidence that the state treasurer, mem
Der of the board, on the objection being
made to a paper said to exhibit the stock
bonds and floating debt of the Union Pa
cific that the stock and bon bonds of other bT
not been deducted, answered, THE board
has decided that 1t cannot make deduc-
tons for property outside of the state y"
This answer was in the presence Of the
!, other members of the board. 1t Is agreed
that the paper referred to was prepared
for the use of the board. It shows a eel
umn of figures marked Deductions for
locally assessed and amounting, when
Earnings" are the figures 1895, 474.06S. from
which is subtracted ,230. giving 391 ,32l
the Guotient This diSdend f is said SiV 70
be shown by the coincidence of figures to
! have been made up Of the market value of
: the stock of the Union Pacific, its mort
gage bonds and other Indebtedness, less
the property locally assessed in the state.
} but without the deduction 10 which we have
, referred and to which the road alleges that
II was entitled, The divisor H. the total
number OF miles of the. road. II is true that
the valuation ultimately reached was $50, 900
! a mile instead of $65,O92. but this is said TO
have been an arbitrary reduction and did
not reduce the amount sufficiently, If we
were to assume that this paper furnished
the basis of the tax.
| ENluentiy the BOARD believed that the t1g-
ures furnished by the roads were too IA
vorable and were intended 20 keep the
taxes as low as they could be kept. Evil
IDENTIFY also the members. or some of them
used their own judgment and their own
knowledge Of WHICH they could give nc
but which they had a right to use. IL hon.
est, however inarticulate the premises. Ii
would seem from the testimony. as might
. fixed were a compromise and were believed
$ by some members to be too low. as they
= us on expert testimony that they are toe
5 low. The result of the evidence manifest,
o the fruitlcsness of inquiries, which. as We
: have said. should not have been gone into
at all. We have adverted more particularly
e to the case of the Union Pacific, but tha'
$ OF the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy stand
a on similar and no stronger ground and
what we have said disposes Of the mair
contention Of both. If the court below had
= difficult to say that the finding was sus
tained by competent evidence. There Ger
u tainly Is no sufficient reason for disturb
e Ing the finding as 1t stands.
t Assumption Unwarranted.
: But no such assumption can be made
: Tho board considered the paper no doubt
but so they considered a capitalization o
IN the sae and the be I Value net Of
connections. Exactly what weighed in eacl
< mind, and even what clements they pur
l. ported TO consider in their debates is litti
d more than guess. There is testimon,
| WHICH CdnnOl DC ntBltCleO lTdI, IN this yer
J. matter of valuing the road by stocks am
bonds. etc, the board. ,from another table
In furnished by the company valued Ii at owe
= $40, 900 and did deduct from that sur
u the stocks and bonds owned by the Foad
lie and valued by the board ct over Sl40, 600 W,
s prior TO the subsequent reduction TO SIS C
a mile. 1t Is said that this valuation is al
surd and due 10 Misunderstanding of tn
IS table. But we have nothing to do wit
II complaints OF that nature, . with anythin
~ less thaa fraud or a clear adoption of
fundamentally wrong principle The boarC
/ In its formal action properly before u.
did vote to request Of the Union Pacih,
- among other things, IAN itemized stat,
~ ment of the several bonds and stocks owne
III by said company, for which they are legal
" entitled TO receive credit on offset in es
=. umating the value of said company for as
~ sessment' This recognizes the true prir
ly clple, almost in terms. Beyond a specula
%" llon from figures, and few statements In
,a properly ELECTED from one or two member
~ OF the board, there is nothing to contradit
he me lniereDce from this vote except III
n above alleged statement of the treasure
met by mis- and others testimony that
proper deduction made
at point less pressed than the foregoin
n, was that the other property In the sta
M was greatly undervalued, and that thu
me rule OF uniformity prescribed by III
IA constitution OF Nebraska had been vi,
II. lated Upon this matter II Is enough
that -