The evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1907-1908, 1907-08-05
REASONSFOR
SUSTAINING
DUFFIELD ACT
Judge Pitney Finds That 1t
Does Not Conflict With
Constitution.

toudy Hueu VIII tHe octIStdiy VI pNNN
his opinion in the suit in the New Jer-
sey Court of Errors and Appeals Of
the Bergen and Dundee Railroad Com
pany. plaintiff in error, VS.. the State
Board of Assessors and ]. Willard Nor
gan, Comptroller, defendants in error.
The suit was decided June IL.
The for the plaintiff in
error were made by Collins & Corbin
and George Holmes For the defend,
ants in error, Robert II. McCarter. at
torney general; Bennett Van Syckel and
John r. Hardin appeared.
The opinion of the court. as delivered
by Judge Pitney, follows:
SYLLABUS.
IN Chapter OF of the laws of 1905
being a supplement to the act for tbs
taxation of railroad and canal property
and known as the DuffeId net Up. L.
1908, D. 1897, Is not In conflict with
article A, section z, paragraph IL, of the
constitution of this state, which pro-
vides that property shall be assessed
for taxes under general laws, and by
uniform rules, according to Its true
value"
CD The so-calIed DufHeld act or. l..
1905, D. 1900 does not conflict with ar
tIcIe IA of the amendments to the fed
ernl constitution, which provides that
no State shall "deprive any person of
life, liberty or property without due
process of law, nor deny to any person
within its Jurisdiction the equal pro-
lection of the laws.'
The State Board of Assessors having in
the year 1905 valued and assessed the
property of the Bergen and Dundee Rail-
road Company, consisting of land other
than main stem and commonly called
second-class railroad property. situate In
the taxing district of the city of Pas
sale, imposed thereon a tax at the local
rate ($2.92 per 5000 pursuant to the pro-
visions of chapter 81 of the laws OF 1895.
being a supplement to- the act for the
taxation of railroad and canal property,
and known as the Dufaeld act (P. l..
1905, p. 1891. The company prosecuted a
writ of certiorari to review this tax on
the ground that the Duffield act is uncon-
stitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed
the tax on the authority of the opinion
of Chief Justice Gummere In Central
Railroad Company VS.. State Board of As
sessors, s. All. 244. To review the judg-
ment of the Supreme Court the present
writ of error was sued out.
1t is insisted that the Dufheld act vio-
lates act 4, sec. Z, par. IL, OF the con-
s%tltution Of this State. which provides
that property shall be assessed for taxes
under general laws, and by uniform
= rules. according to itS true value" 1t Is
also argued that it friends against Art.
II of the amendrnents to the Federal con-
stitution, which provides that no State
shall "deprl re any person of life, liberty
or property, without due process of law,
nor deny to any person within its juris,
diction the equal protection OF the laws.
The Duffield net Is a supplement to thu
act of 1888 Up. l.. 1888, p. 269; Gen. Stat, p
1920, which took the place Of the act OF
1884 (P. l. 1884, p. 142; Sup. Rev. 1856, ?
The act of 1884 provided that all the
property of any railroad or canal company
not used for railroad or canal purposes
should be assessed and taxed by the SAINT
assessors and in the same manner and at
the same rate as the taxable property. Of
other owners In the same taxing district;
that all other property, of any railroad OF
canal company should be assessed and
taxed under this act, and that the tax
all other taxation upon the property, sub
ject to taxation under the provision of
this act. 1t provided that the State Board
Of Assessors should annually ascertain the
true value of all property used for rail-
road or canal purposes of each railroad
and canal company in this State, includ-
ing its franchises. and should In such as
certainment separately ascertain ID the
length and value of the main stem OF each
canal, and the length thereof in each tax
ing district ('tmain stem" being declared
to include the road bed, not exceeding 100
passenger depot buildings; and water
way to include the towing path aud
bernie banO; C) the value of other real
estate used for railroad or canal purposes
in each taxing district; 80 the value of all
tangible personal property OF each rail-
road and of each canal company; CD The
value of the franchise.
Upon the entire assessed valuation of
each ompany as thus ascertained the COM
pany was required to pay to the State for
State purposes a tax Of one-half of l per
centum annually; and also to pay a tax at
the local rate Gas ixed and assessed for
county and municipal purposes upon other
property In each taxing district upon the
Valuation of its property in the several
taxing districts used for railroad purposes
other than main stem and waterway; but
the aforementioned rate was In no case
to exceed 1 per centum of the valuation OF
such property. The sum of these was to
constitute the tax to be paid by each COM
pany. The general tax of one-half of ]
per centum was to be applied to he uses
of the State, and the amount received fol-
tax upon the property separately assessed
in the different taxing districts c'second-
class" railroad and canal property was
appropriated to the various taxing districts,
giving to each district the amount derived
from the property of each company therein,
The scheme of taxation thus established
was upheld as constitutional by this court
in State Board Of Assessors VS.. Central
r. r. Co., 10 Vr., 146.
The act of 1888 preserved the general
scheme Of the act of 1854. eliminating, how
ever, certain features which had been held
unconstitutional in Central Railroad Com
pany vs. State board 20 Vr. l, and Will
Jams VS.. BEETLE. % Vr. 512.
The allotment Of the separate tax upon
~second-class property to the several taxing
districts was provided for by section II
of this act. Up. il, 1883, p. 276), which was
amended by a later act of the same year
(P. L. 1883. p. 376; Gen. Stat. p. 1888, pl.
242). in a respect not now material.
BY p. L. 1897, p. lat. and p. L 1898. D. SO,
thetlaw was amended so as to give to the
several taxing districts the total amount
CT tax derived from second-class prop
erty.
The Dufneld act Up. L. 1905. p. 1887. fur
Their changes the law with respect to the
taxation of ~second-class property, and
with respect to this alone.
It's first section provides for returns to
be made annually to the State Board OF
Assessors by the several companies. show
ing the details of the seccnd-class prop
erty in each taxing district.
The second. third and fourth sections Of
the act are as follows:
80. On or before the first day of August
in each year the State Board of Assessors
shall ascertain and certify the value of
the property described in the foregoing
section this refers to the so-called sec
ond-class railroad and canal property to
the local taxing authorities in the several
taxing Districts In which the same is re-
spectivelY located; provided, that the
right of hearing as now prescribed by law
shall, be in nowise restricted or abridged.
g, The value of SUI property so GER
: titled shall be included in the amount of
the ratables to be taxed in the seVeraf tax
ing districts, and the necessary tax rate
for such district snail be ascertained by