The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-12-10
Commission HOLDS
WILLIAMS ROLLING
STOCK LAW INVALID
Violates Sections Of State Con-
stitution in Tax on Rail-
ways Not Uniform and Not
Specific.
Division of Tax Collections
Between Headquarters Cities
and Counties Traversed Is
Successfully Opposed by Pc
tersburg.

The State corporation commission,
in an opinion handed down yesterday
by Commissioner Prentiss and con-
Cured in fully by Commissioner
Rhea, declares unconstitutional the
rolling stock bill. dividing the tax
from railroad rolling stock between
the headquarters cities and the coun-
ties trayersed by the roads
Commissioner wingheid dissents
upon the jurisdiction question.
The rolling stock bill. so-called, was
passed by the general ssembly OF
1914. Martin williams, OF Giles. was
the author. The bill divided the gross
amount of taxes on the rolling stock
OF the railways between the cities and
counties on the basis OF twenty 1--WE
per cent to the counties. cities or
towns. in which the principal offices
OF the railroads are located. and the
remaining seventy-hve per cent OF
such taxes, among all the several
counties, cities and towns and school
districts in this State. In or through
which such railroads. or any part
thereof. are located or pass"
Petersburg Enters Suit
Heretofore all such taxes had been
collected by the cities in which the
principal Offices of the railroad COM
panies were located. and the new bill,
II allowed to become operative, would
have taken several thousand dollars
from a number of cities In the State.
and increased the income OF many
of the counties The city of Peters
burg. In which are the headquarters
OF the Seaboard Air Line and Atlantic
Coast Line. WAS one of the cities mich
would lose most heavily, and so,
through it's city attorney. George Ma
son, filed petition with the State
corporation commission. asking 1t to
assess the rolling stock under the law
OF 1919, claiming that the Williams
bill was unconstitutional.
II was this petition which was al
lowed yesterday In the decision hand
ed down. The order of the commits
sion Ia as follows:
The Commissions Order.
The commission having maturely
considered the evidence and the argn-
trent OF counsel and for the reasons
stated In writing and filed with the
record. ts Of the opinion and doth
therefore decide that the prayers OF
the petitioner be, and are. hereby
granted. and the clerk of the commss-
sion is directed 10 proceed to furnish
the council of the city of Petersburg
certified copies Of the assessments of
the rolling stock OF the Seaboard Air
Line railway and OF the Atlantic
Coast Line Railroad company, which
have been made by this commission
for State taxation for the year 1913,
definitely showing the character or
such property. it's value and location
within the corporate limits OF the city
Of Petersburg. for purposes or taxa
ton by said city, SO that its city and
school leyies may be laid upon the
same for the exclusive benefit OF the
,ity Of Petersburg, according 70 law.
In order to enable the defendants
10 appeal from this order II - or
dered that execution thereof be sus-
pended for thirty days from this date
All other questions are reserved,
Counties May Appeal
romuouweaiths Attorney Haskfns
Hobsons OF Chesterfield county, one
Of the nineteen county officials who
met In Richmond recently and en-
gagged I'M Carter. OF Richmond; Ran
dolph Harrison. OF Lynchhurg. and F. r.
Buford. of Brunswick. as counsel to
defend tho interests OF the counties
In the suit. said last night that no
decision as to the probable appeal had
been made. It In understood. however,
that the appeal TO tho Supreme court
will be taken. although II is point of
interested to be noted that 1t was the
existence of this right of appeal which
was used as an argument by the com
mission of its Jurisdiction in the case,
It is possible, however. that the coun-
ties will decide TO accept the opinion
OF the commission as Anal and center
their efforts upon the legislature. in
an effort to secure the passage of a
bin. having In view the same purpose.
and which will stand the test of tho
commissions ruling.
The commission. In Its decision, takes
up three questions, quoting extensively
from court records. 1t first disposed
OF the question of Jurisdiction, pointing
out that the question had previously
been decided by the commission and
giving itstreasons In the former case.