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

classification.
fs) In article A, section z, paragraph
IL. of the Constitution of this state
the Dhrase sunlfOrm rules does not re-
fer 10 those regulations that pertain
to the agencies and methods employed
in the assessment and collection OF
taxes, but only TO the bnsic rules fol-
taxation, which settle how the public
burden is to be distributed, Including
the designation of the property fhnt b
to contribute and the rate or rnfid
by which the taxes are to, be laid and
apportioned.
fol The constitutional requirement
of uniform rules for taxation is salts
ned by a uniformity that obtains with
out discrimination throughout n class
of property set apart on reasonable
grounds for separate treatment.
90 since the tax laws under con-
sideration do not deprive the taxpayer
of property without due process OF
law. and since they CONFIRM TO the
constitutional requirement that "prop-
erty shall be assessed for taxes under
general laws, and by uniform rules,
according 10 Its true value,' Ii follows
that they do not deny TO the taxpayer
@the equal protection of the laws
Justice Plnney makes a preliminary re-
view OF tho legislation under question aud
of the acts of the State Board of Assessors
and the railroads objection thereto. The
railroad counsel, In their arguments before
the court, attacked the constitutionality
of the act of 1855 as amended by the Per-
kins act of 1906, and as being in violation,
also. of the fourteenth amendment to the
Federal Constitution. They held that the
basis for the main stem tax and the rate
applied were unconstitutional illegal and
unjust. Justice Pitney cites the part that
the act of 1884 was declared constitutional
by the Court of Erro1s and Appeals and
shows that the act of 1888 preserves the
same general scheme. This act PROVIDED
that all railroad property not used for
railroad ralrposes shall be locally assessed
and taxed. and that all other railroad prop
crtv be assessed and taxed by the State
BOARD. Justice Pitney describes in detail
the features Of the act of 1888, the tax on
main stem to be one-half OF one per cent,
and on second-class property not 10 exceeo
/ ner cent. the latter tax to go to the
municipalities. The Duffield act OF 1910
hanged the law in respect ITO second-ciass
property. which by that law was maze
subject TO assessment by the state boaro
of Assessors at the local rate OF taxation
without any limit to l per cent a Tot
merlv. This act has since been declared
consiitutionaI by the Court of Errors and
Appeals. Justice Pitney proceeds to review
the Perkins act of last year and makes an
exposition of its provisions, including the
fixing of the average rate Tor taxing tHe
main stem, tangible, personal ana IRAN
chises. which is determined by multiply
ing the value of all the property in such
district by the rate Of taxation thereih'
and the aggregate taxes crime state aS
thus computed and determined are 10 pc
divided by the aggregate value OF tne
general property in the State. Another
subsequent act describes the main stem -
include "the roadbed, not.exceeding 100 feet
In width. with its nails and sleepers. and
all str,ct,lres used in connection there
with. not including however any pas
or freight buildings erected tnere-
on" Then follows the second ferkins
witch makes all second class railroad
property assessible and taxable iocahy
by the local assessors. But as Justice
remarks. the taxes under review
are those Of main stem, personally anu
premises. ,
REGIMENTS of the railroad lawyers against
the constitrtionality of the act of 1903, as
n amended by the Perkins act of 1905, ana ne
naotes Important decisions TO controVet'
the points presented. In regard TO the
Orange tax rate ON main stems the coul'
"a VS.. at was not elaine upon the a.s"
,,snt that the rate of taxmtion imooseu ~
ah-rar eoLwhat is called the average
-. te,. NJ taxation, to be computed by the
state BOARD of Assessors as In tnat cnap-
80 nrovided-is ~violative of the consttu-
tional rights of the prosecutors Inc aet
manifasts an effort on the part OF the
7 eeislatur 10, approximate tine annpai pur,
aen of taxation upon frst-cfass raiiroao
and canal property to that w1lcn rs potne
generally by taxpayers IN
Sto+e. and an intent to deal fairy WIN
4h,s class of property, not at all to dis
criminate against IT in favor OF otner tax
naversn Justice P1tney quotes a Michigan
decision sustaining his view, ana says
s.nJor was any reliance placed in the ar
.yrment upon such of the reasons asslsneu
az challenge the taxes In question as psins
arbitrary. and imposed wlthout Iesaiu ~
10 necessities of the State and In excess
- a. Moods If is hardly necessary to say
that the Legislature is the proper judge
20 the amount of money required 10 De
~oi.ad NV taxation for the conuuct Oh ene
ranarnment OF the State. and that IL is
ot nhIiped to determine in advance tne
nocesstv for raising any specific sum o
- &c 10 required IN the CaSS " ~
~ fhe municipal governments -
rho iustice now takes up the con.
,,erted questions, and he goes over ~
seatont,ons of the counsel for the ran
~onds The first and most important ~
rr,r. was whether the Perkins act Is o'
a. ~ 4 general act. The justice mere re-
fars N two recent decisions by the Court
~ Errors and Appeals that have the el-
.fect Of settling every question: ~
controverted about the sub-classiIcalios .
railroad and canal property that Is auope-
Cd in the Perkins act and the otnen sup,
Dlenents of 1906. The act Of 1874 shoolViueu
Railroad property into frst-class anu SET
ord-cIass property. The line or demhrka-
~, hotyceen them was not changed by the
oc+ 20 1sss. and is not materially changed
~, tbe perkins act. The decision on tnat
act mot only upheld the main elassincalloh
tha+ distinguished railroad and canal prop
ort,, from other property In the State, but
also The sub-classihcation Of railroad ana
canal property into main stem ana water
vvav. on the one hand. and ~secono-class
nronerty on the other. The act there sus-
famed like the present legislation, IN
nosed aifferent rates of tax, and taxes ior
5ifsorept purposes, upon the two classes OF
nronertv indeed. the sub-classiication was
astablished to that end and no other. by
the act of 1884, as by the Duf1eId act Oh
1an5 and now again by the Perkins aet,
second class property was subjected TO the
iocol rate of t~axation. ana for local pur-
noses. Upon them all the constitution I'M
q tA... ID - wThafhnR nX