The evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1907-1908, 1907-11-11
CITY WINS BIG
RAILWAY TAX
DECISION
Newark Revenue Thousands
a Year More Through
Pilney Opinion.

An opinion in favor of the city was
given today In the Supreme Court on
the application of the New Jersey
Railroad and Canal Company and the
Pennsylvania Railroad Company, its
lessee. for a summary determination of
the assessment on certain lands in the
city of Newark made by the local au-
thorities at the city rate, and by the
State Board OF Assessors for taxes for
1906. The company protested against
being taxed the regular rate, s1.72 on
every 800 of ratatles. The rule sus-
tanning the city tax rate will also apply
fnsthe case of the New York Bay Rail-
road Company. which was argued at
the same time and on the same briefs.
The first case relates to a strip of
land thirty-fiye feet wide and 735 feet
Ions, extending from the southerly line
Of Market street to the northerly line
OF fIsn.ilton street, and is the westerly
line Of the main tracks of the Pennsyl-
vania Railroad, and the Market street
station platform, and a portion of the
building stands on this strip.
The second case relates to five strips
of land lying along the West Newark
branch of the New York Bay Rail-
road. and is about two miles in length.
and runs from the main line of the
Pennsylvania Railroad, at the foot of
South Broad street, to a freight yard
and depot at Eighteenth avenue.
All this property has ben assessed by
the State Board of Assessors as main
stem railroad property, and this tax
has ben paid, but the city of Newark
taxed it locally as second-class rail-
road property, and the railroads pro-
tested, with the result that the case
has been hanging fire in the courts
since the assessments.
City Attorney Francis Child, jr., and
Special Counsel Herbert Boggs repre-
scented the city, and the question was
whether it was property taxable by the
State as main-stem property or by the
city as seeond-class property, and the
opinion handed down today s~ustains
the action of the city taxing authori-
ties in levying for city tax on the prop
erty in question.
The railroad tax aet OF 1884 specifies the
class IF properly that shall be known as
frst-class property. and provides that first
and second-class property shall be as
sessed by the State Board of Assessors,
first-class at u per cent. and second-class
at ! per cent, but this was amended In
1905 50 that the State Board assessed
second-class railroad property at the tax
rate of the municipality It was located in,
but, as the law now stands, the State
Board has nothing to do with the taxation
of seeond-class property. 1t is taxed by
and the payment made to each particular
taxing locality, In the same manner other
local taxes are assessde and collected.
This means that Tax Receiver Ribert L.
Ross will, under the law. receive from the
companies In question the taxes on the
property covered by the decision of the
Supreme Court at the prevalent tax rate
last year, and will also receive the taxes
for this year on the property.
The companies in question have already
paid the State axes on the property as
main stem, which is a great deal less
than the LEGAL assessment. and will have
to get a refund from the State, and make
IN the difference to pay the city for the
property in accordance with the law as It
now stands.
This will mean IN additional revenue of
many thousand dollars per year to the
city.