The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1908-06-06

% earned WITHOUT lneil; IDey are pfop+
Ierty which ought to be taxe1 as much
= tile main line; they are MS much d
lnsrt Of the 'Toadbed within the state
used in Che operation Of the railroad
and in the earning Of It's income as
W. part Of .Ae main line The stat
] ute Ia no way distinguishes between
.he "roadbedp Of the main line and tie
roadbed' OF double tracks, sidings and
spurs.
Ihe railroad company therefore plae
ffd upon Tho law the reasonable and
lcpmmon construction that the statute
meant to include in the term sroadbed
within the state Just exactly what III
says, VIA, tho roadbed 81 ail tracks
within the state. It therefore based
lthc payment of its taxes upon tie earn
/ ngs per mile Of its total roadbed With
I'm the state Manifestly ii the COM
pany earned in gross $2O00,000 upon
100 miles Of roadbed the tax would
be less than II II earned the same sum
upon q roadbed Of 2974 miles If the
ggoss earnings do not exceed SO 900 per
mile of yoadbed the tax Is AZ per cent.
d more than $4,000 per mile and less
than $4,000 the tax Is 2& per cent; L
riore thatn $500, and less than $4,000
lper mile the tax Is 3 per cent, and so
on increasing as the gross earnings per
pille of line Increases.
One other matter Of difference con
tributed to the dispute between the
company and the tax commissioners
These taxes are duo and payable 10 the
state twice d year. The tax commits.
sicncr insisted that the Unit of earn
iHgs per mile or roadbed upon which
/ The percentage Of tax H based should
lie cut iii two and that the taxes should
DC computed upon basis of az per
cent. Of gross earnings 81 less than $I.-
900 per mile of roadbed for six months
land an increase Of u per cent. upon
each $3.50 Of Increase Of gross earnings
lper mile Of roadbed for six months.
II is not easy to explain TO the
reader just bow this affects the. not
results to the company without going
into n mass Of figures and statistics
that would serve mora to confuse than
illumine this subject Nor can the rea
soning Of the tax commissioner or the
railroad company be clearly shown
without quoting at length the entire tax
law. which canot be done within these
limits. But suffice it to say that there
las been and Is no attempt or desire
upon the part Of the Central Vermont
company to eyade the plain provisions
Of the law or escape its burdens An
undisputahle evidence Of this fact the
central Vermont railway holds the re-
ceipts of tile state treasurer for $50,
iT4.92 for taxes paid for the fiscal year
of 1907. this amount being S4,155.91
I'D excess IF the taxes paid in 1906.
There Is an honest difference of opin-
ion rs to what the law means and ais
til the methods TO be adopted in COM
putting the tax. The railroad company
claims that the language OF section
714 and M Of the public statutes mean
what they say, viz, that the percentage
Is to be figured upon the gross earnings
for each six months period. The tax
commissioner claims otherwise.
These honest differences Of opinion
bttween the tax commissioner and the
railroad are being quietly settled in
the courts where they belong. If the
courts determine that the law is az the
tax commissioner claims the Central
Vermont railway company win comply
vain ItS provisions just 20 long as ~
can earn the money to do SO. The bur
den II a greyious one To q railroad, the
operating expenses of which must nee
spssarilv bear 80 large proportion II
Its gross earnings because Of a sparselg
inhabited territory. lack 81 large manu-
featuring industries, mountainous cossn.
Try and unfrieudly connections But
The charge Of refusing to pay its hon
fft obligations To the state should mot
b preferred until the company has ne
elected and refused to pay what the
courts say can justly be collected under
the law. The state tax commissioner j.
not invested by law with the power and
authority to eonstrue the meaning Of
The statute. The public mind should
met be inflamed against the railroad
company merely because it seeks to
ltarn what the law means.