The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-10-14
TESTS
ROLLING STOCK ACT
Files Bill With Corporation Com
mission Against Two
Railroads.
WILL GO TO SUPREME COURT
Validity OF Act Apportioning
Taxes to Counties Is Called
i'll Question.


tutionality Of the rolling stock act
adopted By the last session of the Cen
cral Assembly. the city Of Petersburg
Yesterday Aled proceedings before tho
state Corporation Commission in con-
nection with the 1918 asscssment or tho
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad and sea-
board Air Line Railway. which have
their principal Virginia Offices in Pc
tersburg. The commission fixed No
'cnber az the date OH which the de-
PENDANT counties and cities must file
their replies. The test case will prob
ably be taken 10 the Supreme Court Of
Appeals OF Virginia
Prior TO the passage or tho act in
question. the cars, engines and moving.
equipment known in railroad language
as rolling stock" were assessed for
taxation in the town or city In which
was located the principal office of the
company in this State. Under the old
law. therefore. the rolling stock OF the
Seaboard Air Line and Atlantic Coast
Line were taxed in Petersburg
Apportions Tux Among Counties.
The General Assembly Of 1912 adopted
what was known as the rolling stock
bill, which provided that the Corpora-
ZION Commission should apportion the
total amount OF rolling stock tax paid
by any one railroad among the coun-
ties, cities and school districts through
winch the road runs. tho apportionment
not TO take effect until the 1913 assess
ment. In tho proceedings fled yester-
day the railroads are only technically
parties at interest. They have TO pay
the same tax in either event, and are
not primarily interested In the distri-
button of the money.
In the case against the Atlantic
Coast Line the following are made
defendants and will be served with
personal summons to protect their in
tcrests: The Atlantic Coast Line Rail
road Company: city OF Richmond:
Board Of Supervisors OF Chesterfield
County and the school boards OF Man
chester. Dale bermuda and AIatoaca
Districts: the Board of Supervisors OF
Dinwiddie County and the school
boards OF Namozine and Rowanty Dis
tricts; the Board OF Supervisors of
Prince George County and the school
board Of Templeton District; the
Board OF Supervisors OF Sussex Coun-
y ana the school boards of stony
Creek and Henry Districts: the Board
OF Supervisors OF Greenesville County
and the school boards OF Bellneld, Zion
and liicksford Districts: the Board of
supervisors Of Nanscmond County and
the school boards or Sleepy Hollow
and Cyprus Districts: the Board of
Supervisors OF Norfolk County and the
school board OF Western Branch Dis
trict; the city Of Norfolk. the city OF
Portsmouth and the city OF Suffolk.
The Companion Case.
IN the companion case against the
Seaboard Air Line, the defendants are:
the Scaboard Air Line Railway: the
Board of Supervisors OF Henrico Coun-
~ and the school board OF BrookIaud
District: the city OF Richmond; the
Board OF Supervisors OF Chesterfield
County and the school boards OF Man
chester, Bermuda. Dale and Matoaca
Districts; the Board OF Supervisors of
Dinwiddie County and the school
boards OF Namozine. Rowanty and
Sapory Di5tricts: the Board OF Super-
visors Of Brunswick County ana the
school boards of Red oak. Totaro and
Meherrin Districts; the Board of SUI
pervisors Of Mecklenburg County and
the school boards OF South Hill, Flat
Creek and Palmors Spring Districts:
the city OF Portsmouth; the Board of
Supervisors OF Norfolk County and the
school boards Of Western Branch and
Deep Creek Districts: the Board OF
supervisors Of N::usomond County and
the school boards OF cyprus. SLEEPY
Hole. Holy Neck anc Chuckatuck Dis
tricts: che city OF Norfolk: the Board
or Supervisors Or Isle OF What Couu-
" and the school board OF Windsor
District; the Board of Supervisors of
SouthamI ton County and the school
boards OF Franklin. Newsoms and Boy
kins Districts: the town OF Franklin
and the town OF Poykins
Henvy Loss to Cities.
While Richmoro appears as a de-
PENDANT and would gain some small
sums from the distribution OF the tax
en- rolling stock Of railroads operating
here. but with niiico: located elsewhere
IN the State. It would lose n much
larger amount from the superintendent
az the tax hitherto paid here. The
loss 10 this city from the rolling stock
act has been estimated at $4,000 a
year.
Under the bill as it now stands il
was estimated that in the new appor-
tionment. Roanoke would lose approNi-
mately $4,000 a year The exact
losses tc the various cities from the
WORKING OF the new law have not vet
been figured out, as the Corporation
commission has not made the amor
tonment OF the 1913 taxes 1t is to
stop that apportionment. and so make
out n test case that can lie carried
10 the Supreme Court OF Appeals on
the question involving the right OF the
General Assembly to apportion rolling
stock taxes when the charters of the
railroads specify where they shall be
Eaid. that the test case was brought
The papers were presented By George
Mason, attorney for Petersburg ami c.
Hamilton Graves, attorney for Roa-
noke. 1t is expected that other cities
affected will join in the test action.
and that the various counties Of the
tSate through which railroads run,
and which expect TO profit from the
operation OF the new law, will take
some concerted action TO protect their
interest.