Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1914-11-17
RAILROADS WIN
IN TAX APPEAL
Reversing Supreme Court, Er-
rors Court Sets Aside Asssss-
ments of 81, 3s5,1so.

Special to the Evening star.
! TRENTON. Nov 1.-THE decision
Of the Court Of Errors and Appeals
/ handed IN yesterday reviewing the
| Supreme Court and setting aside as
sessments aggregaring 1886. $50 levied
] BY the State Board Of ASSESSORS upo1s
railroad property OF the Long Doclz
| Company in Jersey City, apparently
makes a new era in railroad taxation
ia this state.
| Il sets aside the doctrine enunciated
/ by the Supreme Court that the stats
Board Of Assessors is a Judicial
viewed unless the principal upon
which their determination was
reached vas inherently and legalls
vicious.s
Justice swayze handed down the
+ decision, renarlSing that railroad tax
/ case hearings must be real, NOT sham.
/ The reversal was directed by q vets
/ Of { TO / Justice Black, Of JERSEY
j City, who was formerly a member of
the State Board of Taxation. alone
voted TO affirm the Judgment
+ The Court Of Errors declares thar
under the railroad tax act il Is the
duty Of the Supreme Court 70 afford
relief as well IN cases where the
amount Of the tax is excessive or n
sufficient, as IN cases where the prir
cipie upon which the assessment +
made is erroneous.
/ Elsewhere the court points out fha
the manifest intention of the Legisla-
I ture was to afford the railroads equal
protection Of the laws IN common
with other citizens.
! One Of the important declarations
made by the Court of Errors Is tina
I the members of the State Board or
Assessors, even though they be re-
gardeo as judicial body, NAV be
subjected to cross denomination as Il
/ their personal knowledge OF the value
! OF railroad property where that
/ knowledge is used in determining an
assessment. The court shows. for ex
ample, that in the case Of the Long
Dock Company the testimony Of OK
perts called by both sides was prach
cally the same as TO the value OF the
/ property. To this value the assessors
added ~ per cent, or about 81 COO 0uD
Commenting upon this the court says
There was no evidence to supper
this addition. since the court did not
even assume that members of the
+ board possessed knowledge not pos
sessed by the experts, but spoke only
/ Of considerations probably wiff,}r
the personal knowledge of the asses
sors, probability that was at best
/ conJectural, since the assessors ~
i fused to disclose whether OF not ther
had any means of knowledge oi
familiarity with the property thep
! were valuing
+ The question of value Of raflrpa5
! property is a highly technical one far
/ experts, and the State had. in 1909. for
! the information of the Peep e Of the
state and the State Board OF Asse.-
sors, as the preamble Of the lexisla
tive resolution declares. employed
/ such experts. There was no ore
sumption in the mind Of the Leefsz
lature that members of the board
would know more than the experts.
and the court ought not to assurgaS
sneh to be the fact without proof.
In dispesing Of the contention thai
as Judicial body the assessors cosslaE
not be compelled TO testify, the coslr4
points out that the Legislature. 81
providing for review by the court of
the amount Of the tax and the exae<
siveness, OF insufficiency Of the assess
ment, has by the necessity Of CASE
provided for the taking of testimony
of members of the board, since there
cannot be such review. unless All thR
facts before the board are presented.
to the court.