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

I HhA1t
Justice Pitney discusses the question o
uniformity under the Perkins act. and h
shows clearly that the law conforms Il
the constitution In that respect. The opin
ion by Justice Beasley against the act o
1884 had been appealed to by the railroad
lawyers to show that the Perkins &C
violated the constitution rule. Justice Pit
ney states that Beasley's opinion related
to the use to which the property was de
voted, and not 10 its nature or situation
After citations from decisions to show tina
the sub-classification in the act of 1884 wal
not sustained by the court merely on TN
ground that the two. forms of tax TO
gether constituted a single tax, Justice
Pitney says:
The fact that all property used FOL
railroad and canal purpose may properls
be set apart in a class by itself, as dis-
tlnguished from the general mass OF prop
erty In the State, for purposes OF tnxatlon,
does not at all negative the propriety OF
sub-dividing this general class OF propertS
into minor classes for the purpose OF TAX
alton. Nor is the sub-ciasslfcation spe-
cIal, and hence Unconstitutional proVloeu
It rests upon grounds of DISCRIMINATION ~
! herent either In the character OF the prop
erty or in Its situation and circumstances
such as to render the distinction reason
ably appropriate to the purpose OF the class
\ i6cation. : . The line of demarkauon
between the two subdivisions is CHOSEN
with little reference to the use to whlcn
the property is devoted. but with especial
reference to the location and SITUATION u
that which is to be locally taxed.
I'm our Legislation" says Justice Pitney,
.it hos MT ali times been recognized thai
the land indispensable for the use OF a rali-
road MS a public highway Is d belt or strip
OF limited width" He quotes charter pro-
visions and authorities to show the limlIa-
tion to 100 feet wide. but companies Dy
special charter can hold land outside OF the
limits fixed. The revised railroad act OF
1903 confers the power to acquire ihho ~
terminal purposes, etc.
THE distinction between the continuous
belt of land without which a railroad
could not exist as a highway, and other
sorts of railroad property, was early recog-
nized as having something to do with the
question of taxation"
The LEGISLATURE, in 1873, passed an act.
the preamble Of which recited that the
property of railroads. being largely ac-
quired for or through the growth and ex-
tension of their property, should contribute
to the charges and expenditures for NUM-
cipal and county purposes, and that 1t was
desirable, In order to the avoidance OF litl-
CATION and future dissatisfaction, that such
municipal and county taxation should be
and that the same should be
permanently fixed and regulated" In the
scheme OF taxation provided the main stem,
not exceeding 100 feet wide, was excepted.
The general railroad act of 1873 also ex-
the main stem. 100 feet wide.
"It will thus be seen" says Justice Pit
ney. that the distinction between the
essential right of way socalled,
of a railroad-tlie strip of land without
which 1t could not exist as a public high
way aud means Of transportation across
the State-and the remaining land of the
company used for railroad purposes, Is in
in our legislation. So far as the
setting of these two different sorts of
into separate classes for pur-
poses of taxation is concerned. the distinc-
lion rests, as we conceive. not so much
upon the ground that they are devoted to
uses, rs that the dependence of
the several companies upon local police
and the other advantages of
municipal government, the benefits to be
derived by them from such government,
and hence the proper admeasurement OF
the tax tina should be contributed by the
companies TO the respective local govern
ments. are proportioned approximately TO
the amount cf land held by them in the
several municipalities above and beyond
the main stem that is indispensably neces-
sary for their traffic"
1T seems to us entirely reasonable for
the Legislature. upon determining that
property used for railroad and canal pur-
poses should contribute directly to the cost
Of local government. to require the COM
panies to contribute to the several taxing
districts In a proportion based, with reason
able approximation TO accuracy, upon the
amount and value of the property held by
them in the municipality. This was in Ell
feet lone by the act OF 1884 and by the
revised act of 1888. And the same thing Is
In effect accomplished by the supplements
of 1906. including the Perkins Act. NO
doubt the Legislature might have turned
over the main stem as we'll as the second
class property to the several municipali-
ties for purposes of taxation. 1t might
have reserved all railroad and canal prop
erty for taxation by the State Board Tor
State 1t has chosen ty the acts
now under review to reserve for taxatlon
for strictly State purposes the indispens-
able main stem. and to remit the other
railroad property TO local taxation. NOT
can It be said that the adoption OF a
width OF 100 feet as the limit of the main
stem for the purpose of this distinction
is arbitrary In any sense that renders the
classification missionary and the law there
fore special"
Justice Pitney takes up the point at
terminal points the roadbed actuaily
extends far beyond 100 feet and that
thereis no difference the moue
in which the strip called main stem
IA used and that In which the adjoining
nortions are used, one being assessed
by the State board and the other as
sessed locally. IF" say the court,
the distinction between main stem
and second-class property depended
upon the use to which the property Is
devoted. these circumstances would
possess much force. AS already re-
marked. It does not depend upon that
distinction, but rather upon the ground
that by reason of the treat extent and
value of the railroad property at the
proper that the railroad companies
should contribute more largely to the
cost of the local government than In
| other places where the amount of theii
property is less. Upon principle, there
fore, as we'll as upon what we deem
controlling authority, we are clearly
of the opinion that the subdivision OF
railroad and canal property into TIVE
classes is based pom reasonable grounds
that are fairly germane to the mar
purpose of Imposing two separate ant
distinct taxes" The law II
therefore a general Jaw.
In regard to uniformity Justice Prime!
quotes extensively from judicial decisions
and says the phrase uniformity does no
refer TO those regulations that pertain 4
the agencies and methods employed in tn
assessment and collection of taxes, but onl.
to the basic rules for taxation; those tina
settle how the public burden is to be dis
tpihutad. inpIudfnU fha dpsipnntiOn af III