Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-12-06

Totals $l;s
mayor and Council of the city of Ho.
boken VS.. Carl Lentz ct ais, Board Of
Equalization of Taxes. ct ais. Ths
matter first came before this board
being brought by the Morris and Els
sex Railroad Company, Delaware
Lackawanna and Western Rail.
road Company, lessee, and Ho-
boken Ferry Company, on ap-
peal from an assessment levied by the
city of Hoboken on property known as
the lower ferry property, comprising
the ferry buildings there located and
the land wherein they stand. This
property had been assessed by both the
State Board of Assessors as property
used for railroad purposes, and by the
city Of Hoboken. The case was argued
before the board at some length, and
the testimony developed that the only
part of the ferry buildings used fol
local purposes was the lower floor, and
that the use was three-fourths loca'
and o~ne-fourth railroad use. On the
principle enunciated by the Supreme
Court in reunited New Jersey Rail
road and Canal Company (68 Att. Rep
1877, in which it was held that so much
Of the lower floor of the f~erry-house az
was mainly devoted to the accommo-
dalton of local passengers, trucks, ETC..
from the city and vicinity was subject
to local taxation, the board held that
the local assessment on the land should
be cancelled, as on property used fol
railroad purposes, and that the as
sessment on the building be cancelled
also. except for the lower floor of the
ferry-house, which was used in the
main for local purposes, and that ar
assessment of $S5, 900 should be appor-
toned as the true value of hi por-
ton Of the building. This Judgment
the city of Hoboken carried to the Su-
preme Court on writ of certiorari, con
tending that the land also should be
in part assessable locally, in such pro-
portion as that part of the building
used for local purposes bears to the
entire building. The court held thai
this case controlled by the decision
in reunited N. j. r. r. and Canal Com
pany,, above cited, and that that CASE
was binding upon the court to the ex.
tent to which 1t had gone, wiz, as ap'
plicable to a building or buildings
but that under the phraseology of the
act of 1888, for the taxation of rail
road and canal property, this principle
could not be extended further to in
ciude the land on which such building
stood. The Judgment of the board wal
therefore affirmed.
I Part of Assessment Cancelled.
Another judgment of this board wa
before the court in the case of Borough
of M~ountainside VS.. Board of Equaliza
ton of Taxes G5 Att. Rep, 324), which
deals with the exemption of the prop
erty of a charitable institution located
in different taxing districts. The case
came before this board on appeal
bought by the Newark Orphan Asy-
lum from the assessment for the year
1908. levied by the borough of Noun
tainside on about seventeen acres OF
land and sundry buildings and the per-
sonal property therein. The Newark
Orphan Asylum is a corporation Of
New Jersey, organized for charitable
purposes and having its main office in
Newark, where 1t owns property-and Is
allowed exemption from taxation there
on. 1t also owns this property in
Mountainside borough, which is used
for carrying on the charitable purposes
of the association during certain
months of the year, and while there
was no question as to the general use
of the property involved in the appeal
the borough commended that the asso-
citation could not claim exemption in
two taxing districts as a charitable in
stitution. The board decided that 1t was
the use of the property, so long as it
was an exclusive use,' which deter
mined its right to exemption, the law
merely limiting the extent of the land
on which the buildings so exclusively
used for charitable purposes were erect
ed. On this ground the board cancelled
the assessment on the buildings and
personality and FIVE acres of land. and
fixed a valuation of 800 per acre on the
remaining twelve acres. This Judgment
the borough took to the Supreme Court
for review, and the court affirmed 1t,
under section 4 of h general tax revi-
sion of 1903.
Regarding the taxing of bank stock
the State board says:
Attention again is called to the need
for legislative action with respect to
the taxation of bank stock. This class
of property enjoys a degree of i'm
munity from taxation for which there
is certainly no warrant in sound public
policy, nor in the spirit of our tax sys-
TEN. We are unanimously Of the opin-
ion that under prevailing methods of
assessment bank stock oes not con-
tribute its just share to the tax fund.
Real Estate Assessed Separately.
"As the law on this subject now
stands, under chapter 2S4 of h laws
of 1905, generally known as the Buck
act, all ~non-taxable securities held by
a national or State bank may be de-
Quoted in computing the value of the
shares for taxation in the hands of the
shareholders. The present method of
arriving at the value of the stock for
purposes is to divide the ag-
gregate of the capital, surplus and un-
divided profits, after deducting the
value of real property and non-taxable
by the number of shares.
The real estate is separately assessed
and taxed.
THE deduction of the non-taxable
securities, however, has taken a large
of personally out of the rata
bles of the various taxing districts, in
cases reducing the taxable value
per share to a merely nominal figure.
not wiping 1t out altogether. AS was
recently said to this board by one of
the taxing officials, The banks have
gotten wise and extended their hold
iooe IN r,upicinaI honde 40 that in