The evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1907-1908, 1907-11-27
ESSEX VALUES
INCREASED
$25,477,755


- a
lance of the years work as did the
variety and difficulty of the questions
involved; to decide the appeals of the
railroad companies from the assess
ments upon their properties in Jersey
City invoiyed a great mount of time
and labor.
The report reviews the history OF rail
road fax legislation in New Jersey, and
shows the changes that have been brought
about by legislation of recent years; the
effect of this legislation. according to the
board. has not yet been felt. because the
railroads~are fighting the enormous in
crease of their tax burden. To date every
decision has sustained these laws. n the
board confidently expects that they will
be upheld iu the courts of last resort. The
report continues that the only question
remaining in controversy Is not one of the
amount Of tax. but whether the main stem
shall be assessed as a whole by the Stale
for the benefit Of all the localities, or shall
be assessed in parcels by and for the
benefit of the respective localities in which
Mt Is located. The report says public
sentiment differs as to these questions ac-
cording to their geographical conditions.
In commenting upon the tax cases from
Jersey City and discussing further legiS-
lation on his subject, the report says:l
THE most important matter that was
brought before the board this year was
the appeal from the railroads against
Jersey City in which they alleged Illegal
assessments in that property other than
that of railroad property was assessed be-
low true value and railroad property was
assessed above true value. After the
hearing of testimony the board was salts
fied-it being, in fact, practically admitted
that generally speaking the property in
Jersey City was assessed only from so to
70 per cent. of true value, the city au-
thorfties claiming that the petitioners were
not injured thereby, as the assessment
placed upon their property was on the
same basis.
"On the petition OF the Central Railroad
Company the board ordered a reassess-
ment of all real estate In Jersey City, in
GLIDING that of the railroads. This order
was taken to the Supreme Court and af-
firmed by one justice, n was then taken
to the Court of Errors and Appeals. The
majority of this court held that under the
made rights were so fixed that 1t could
not be set aside, and a new assessment
ordered, except upon notice to. each tax
payer. OF course, this practically defeated
the possibility of reassessInent. After this
decision the railroads prosecuted their ap-
peal, on the ground that their property
was largely over-assessed, and, after hear
ing the board adjusted these assessments.
affirming many n reducing some. We
that these judgments have
been or are to be taken up for review to
the Supreme Court.
1.-THE litigation has shown the necessity
OF considerable amendment to the act, IL
it is desired to make 1t eficacious In the
way Of comforting power to order a re-
assessment. Some question also seems to
ave been raised as to the authority to
review assessments made by the State
Board Of Assessors on railroad property;
it was thought that the act was broad
enough to cover that point, but consider
able has been thrown Upon it by late de-
cisions Of the Supreme Court. These mat
tiers would seem to be proper subjects for
by the Legislature to the
end that the powers possessed and to be
by this board may be explicitly
defined, generally speaking. there seems
to have been an attempt throughout the
State to secure the assessment of property
at its true value. While some OF this Is
due 70 the continuous efforts this board
has been making in Its communications
with the assessors, and also to the efforts
of the county boards. 1t is more directly
and practically due 10 the maximum tax
rate act.
Many taxing districts that were as
sessed on a 20, 30 or 80 per cent. basis ave
come up practically to true value. 1t is
rather amusing to see and hear ii seri-
ouely discussed hat this assessment at
true value is n new law or some new enact
nent by the Legislature. 1t seems almost
impossible to convince the public that it Is
simply an enforcement of a long existing
law.
'The troublesome question Of the as
sessment of personal property seems no
solution than 1t has been for a. long
time. It is fair to say that. In the main,
personal Is not taxed in New Jersey. This
refers especially to the intangible prop
erty. Tt Is probably true as 1t is claimed
that such intangible property pays taxes
somewhere, insofar as. 1t is founded on
tangible property, and that, therefore, the
seeming Inequality between the taxes paid
by intangible personal property and the
burden imposed upon tangible personally
and real estate in this State is more ap-
parent than real"