The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-12-10
Corporation Commits
sion Says Act Violates
Constitution.
DOES NOT AFFORD
EQUAL TAXATION
Law Fails to Comply With Re.
quire m ent Specifying How
Taxes Shall Be Levied.
Counties May Give Up Their
Claim to 1913 Taxes and
Apply for New Act.

The rolling stock act of 1912 pro-
Viding for tho apportionment of the
tax heretofore paid at the home office
or the company among the counties and
cities through which steam railway
lines operate, was declared unconstitu-
uonal by the State Corporation Com
mission yesterday. An extended opin-
ion. written by Judge Prentis. was
phases of the case in detail. CoInmis-
sloner Rhea concurs. Commissioner
Wingiield concurs as to the unconstitu-
tionality of the act, but dissents as to
the jurisdiction OF the Corporation
Commission.
tho city of Petersburg against the Sea.
board Air Line and Atlantic Coast Line
Railroads. The city of Roanoke which
claims tho tax on the rolling stock of
the Norfolk and Western Railway Com
pany, came in as party to the suit.
The Order Entered.
The following order was entered:
The commission, having maturely
considered the evidence and the argu-
ment OF counsel. and for the reasons
stated in writing and filed with the re-
cord. is of the opinion. and doth, there
fore, decide that the prayers OF the
petitioner be. and are hereby. granted.
and the clerk OF the commission is di-
rectcd to proceed TO furnish the Coun-
q
copies of the assessments of the rolling
stock Of the Seabonrd Air Line Rail-
way and of the Atlantic Coast Line
Railroad Company, which have been
made by this commission for State tax
alton for the year 1913. definitely show
ing the character of such property, it's
value and location within the corpo-
rate limits of tho city of Petersburg.
for purposes of taxation by said city,
SO that Its city and school levies may
be laid upon tho same for the exclusive
benefit OF the city OF Petersburg, ac-
lcording to law.
I'm order to enable the defendants to
appeal from this order. it is ordered
that the execution thereof be suspend
cd for thirty days from this date.
"All other questions are reserved"
Cities Win Large sums.
In declaring the act unconstitutional
the decision will affect all cities In the
State in which are located the prin-
cipal offices OF railway lines. The act
IN question attempted to divert from
the cities in which such offices are To-
Gated three-fourths Of the tax on NOV
ing equipment. and to have II appor-
toned among the counties and cities
through which the road operates It
was stated at the time OF its passage
that if put in effect, it would divert
from Richmond more than 100000 n
year, from Petersburg about $4,000,
and from Roanoke about s125,OOO
Roanoke being by far the heaviest
loser in proportion to its gross income.
The case was fully argued before tho
Corporation Commission. Hill Carter
Randolph Harrison and E. p Buford
appeared for the counties affected and
Richard Evelyn Byrd and George Ma
son for the cities. The railroads were
only technically parties to the pro-
ccedinGs. They have to pay the tax
in any case. and had little preference
where 1t went.
1t has not yet been determined
whether an appeal will be taken from
the decision of the commission to the
supreme Court. or whether the coun-
ties will abandon their fight for the
aDDortionment of the 1913 taxes and
depend upon the General Assembly to
pass n new rolling stock bill meeting
the legal and constitutional objections
Judge Martin Williams. OF Giles Coun-
ty, one of the patrons OF the bill. was
present at the recent argument and
predicted that If the pending act wero
declared unconstitutional. new one
would be adopted moro stringent in
its character. taking from the cities
all Of the tax instead OF three fourtiis
The opinion written by Judge Prem
It's says that the act--was passed in
response TO .well-defned public SEN
timent." Although adopted early In
1919. It was not to take effect until
1913.
violation of Constitution.
Proceeding then to determine
whether the rolling stock act is in
violating of the Constitution OF the
State the opinion says:
First. Does 1T violate Section so OF
the Constitution?
That section, among other things,
provides that every law imposing. con
tnuing or revising n tax shall spe-
officially state such tax, and no law shall
be construed as so stating such tax
which requires n reference to any other
law or any other tax. This language
Is plain, definite and specific.
The rolling stock law nowhere
states the amount Of tax to be levied
upon the rolling stock of railway COM
panies. 1t prescribed tax based on
the rate of taxation imposed on the
property of natural persons for local
purposes by the county, city or town
in which the principle office of any such
railroad corporation is located This
Is the only language in the act which
defines the rate OF taxation to be
imposed upon the rolling stock for
the benefit of the various localities OF
the State. Tho various local author
tiles are not under this act authorized
to levy any tax upon this class Uf
property. hut tho Legislature itself
in the act undertakes to prescribe tho
rate OF taxation, varying in amount
In different localities. and requires this
commission to compute 1t in accord
ance with these varying rates. In
asmuch as tho rates arc not named In
the act, and rs they can only be ns-
contained by reference to various other
rates OF taxation Imposed by the va
rious taxing authorities in different
sections OF the State, 1t seems perfect
(Continucd on Tenth pagc.)