one of said corporations, so that by virtue of said act such corporations should be consolidated and merged, and also so that all the property, rights, privileges and franchises, by law vested in such corporations, should be transferred to and vested in the corporation into which such consolidation and merger should be made. The succeeding sections of said act provide for the mode of effecting such consolidation and merger. The fourth section enacts, that upon filing a certificate and copy of the agreement provided for in the preceding sections in the office of the Secretary of State, the merger should be deemed to have taken place and the said corporations be one corporation, possessing all the rights, privileges and franchises theretofore vested in either of them. It follows, that if either of the said corporations, which by consolidation and merger went to constitute "The Open Cut and General Storehouse Company" possessed, at the time of such consolidation and merger, the rights, privileges and franchises of a railroad corporation, such rights, privileges and franchises, by the consolidation and merger, after such agreement filed, were transferred to the new corporation.

Upon reference to the act, whereby the name of the "Weehawken Transportation Company" is changed to "The Midland Terminal and Ferry Company," it is found that the last-named corporation was authorized to improve all or any part of its lands by constructing therefrom and thereon and over the lands of others a railroad or railroads, to intersect with the railroad or railroads then built belonging to "The Montclair Railway Company," "The New Jersey Midland Railway Company," and "The Ridgefield Railroad Company," within the limits of the county of Hudson, north of the railroads of "The New Jersey Railroad and Transportation Company," east of the Hackensack river and west of Bergen Hill, so as to connect with any or all the railroads above mentioned, and with any other railroad or railroads then built, or which might thereafter be built. The said "The Midland Terminal and Ferry Company" was also, by said last named act, given power to survey, lay out and construct a railroad or railroads. In short, said company was invested with all the rights, privileges and franchises of a railroad corporation, including the power of eminent domain.

By the consolidation and merger all the aforesaid powers were

transferred to and vested in "The Open Cut and General Storehouse Company," and subsequently, when the name of that corporation was legally changed, passed to "The West Shore and Ontario Terminal Company."

It also appears by the proof that the property of "The West Shore and Ontario Terminal Company," valued for taxation by the State Board of Assessors, had been and was, at the time of the valuation and assessment, used for railroad purposes.

It is clear, therefore, that "The West Shore and Ontario Terminal Company" was, at the time of the assessment, a rail- . road corporation, and that its property assessed by the State Board of Assessors for the year 1885 was liable to taxation under the railroad tax law of eighteen hundred and eighty-four.

Another reason alleged why the assessment should be set aside is, that neither the secured nor unsecured debts were deducted from the valuation of the property by the Board of State Assessors.

The railroad tax law of 1884 provides that no deduction, either for mortgage or other indebtedness, shall be allowed, unless such deduction be applied for, in the statement required to be made by the companies, in the twenty-first section of said law. It appears that no claim for deduction was made under that section, nor in any other way.

It is also alleged that the valuation of the property on which the assessment was predicated was excessive. The proofs taken under this head relate to the valuation of the franchise, and of certain structures which will hereafter be mentioned. As to all the other property, there not being any testimony on the subject, the valuation made by the State Board of Assessors will stand. The important question raised, under the head of excessive valuation, relates to the franchise. It is said, that in making the valuation of the franchise, the Board did not take into account the value of certain property of the Company in the State of New York.

The testimony in reference to that property and its value relates to the date of January, 1887, which is two years after the time when the State Board of Assessors made the valuation on which the assessment in this case is based. There is no evidence showing what property (if any) the said company held in the

State of New York, or the value thereof in January, 1885, being the taxing date. The Court cannot, in the absence of proof, interfere with the valuations of the franchise by the State Board of Assessors. There is no proof by which the Court can determine that the valuation of the franchise by the State Board in January, eighteen hundred and eighty-five, was excessive, and therefore the valuation will not be changed.

Certain property is claimed to be exempt, because, as alleged, it was within the main stem of the railroad, the main stem having also been assessed as such.

No proof was given to show that such property was within the one hundred feet taxed as main stem, nor was there any evidence showing that the valuation was excessive-and therefore the Court will not disturb the assessment on the value of such property.

Objection is made to the valuation of a bridge. It was part of the property, the construction of which was necessary to the use of the railroad. In the case of the Central Railroad Company et al. v. The State Board of Assessors, reported 20th Vroom, page 1, bridges were considered in the valuation.

As to the other property claimed to be exempt, because not used, as alleged, for railroad purposes, it is sufficient to remark, such property was returned to the State Board, as used for railroad purposes, thus escaping local taxation, and after such return, it was too late to claim exemption. Nor does the proof show that the valuation of such property was excessive.

The evidence sustains the valuation placed on four of the ferryboats, but the valuation of the other boat should be reduced from twenty-five thousand to fifteen thousand dollars.

Another reason urged with such tenacity, to set aside the assessment, is the claim that the real estate other than main stem is assessed at a relatively higher value than the real estate of individuals in the same taxing districts. If this be so, it is in violation of the railroad tax law of 1884, and the valuation should be reduced. This claim is based upon the assessments made by the local assessors, but the testimony shows that their valuations were less than the true value. In the case before cited, the Court held that the State Board of Assessors, in their valuation of property, are not necessarily to be governed by the valuations made by local assessors in the same taxing district.

The State Board of Assessors are to take true value as the standard, and not discount from their estimation of the true value because of the custom of local assessors to value property for taxation at less than its true value. It is not shown that the State Board of Assessors valued and assessed the lands of this company above its true value, or above the true value of lands of individuals in the same taxing district.

The remaining objection, and the one chiefly relied upon to set aside the assessment, or lessen the amount of tax, involves the construction of section twelve of the railroad tax law of 1884. The clause of that section which is invoked reads as follows, viz: "That if said Board, upon complaint of any company, shall in any case ascertain that the addition of the State tax of one-half of one per cent. to the local rate, as limited in this act, would compel any company to pay more tax than the tax such company would pay if such company did not pay the state tax of one-half of one per cent., but did pay full local rates on all the property and franchises mentioned in section three, without any other exemption than such as would be allowed to an individual citizen on such property, that then, and in such case, the said Board shall make such deduction as will make the tax equal to the amount that such company would pay upon all the property and franchises mentioned in section three, without any State tax of one-half of one per cent.; the Board for the purpose of ascertaining the amount (but for no other purpose) to be authorized to apportion the value of the franchise among the local taxing districts."

The complaint of the company in this case, as set forth in writing, filed with the State Board of Assessors, is that the addition of the State tax of half of one per cent. to the local rate, as limited by the act of eighteen hundred and eighty-four, would compel it to pay more tax than it would pay if it paid only full local rates on all its property and franchises mentioned in section three of said act, and did not pay the State tax.

Therefore it requested the State Board of Assessors to make such deduction as would make the tax on its property equal to the amount it would pay if it paid full local rates on all its property and franchises without the State tax of one-half of one per

cent.

Do the facts sustain the complaint in the whole or in part? Has there been overtaxation of the property in question in any respect?

The property of the company was found in two taxing districts, viz.: the township of Union, in the county of Hudson, and the township of Weehawken, in the same county.

The valuation by the State Board of Assessors of all the property in the township of Union, for the year 1885, was two millions three hundred and twelve thousand three hundred and eighty-six dollars ($2,312,386). The total amount of tax to be raised in that township in the year 1885 for local purposes was six thousand six hundred and seventy-one dollars ($6,671.00). A rate less than thirty cents on the one hundred dollars on above valuation of all the property in the township would produce the local tax required. The value of the property of the company in said township of Union, as assessed by the Board, was one million six hundred and forty-six thousand four hundred and eighty-six dollars ($1,646,486), which at the above rate would produce four thousand nine hundred and thirty-eight dollars and fifty-five cents tax ($4,938.55). The amount of tax assessed by said Board on the property of this company, in the township of Union, in the year 1885, was twenty-four thousand six hundred and ninety-seven dollars and twenty-nine cents ($24,697.29), being an excess of tax in said township of more than nineteen thousand dollars, ($19,000) over what the company would pay in that township if they paid full local rates on all their property therein, including a just share of the value of the franchise.

In the township of Weehawken, the valuation of all the property in the year 1885 was six million two hundred and twentynine thousand nine hundred and fifty-three dollars ($6,229,953.00). The amount of tax to be raised in said township for local purposes in the year 1885, was forty-six thousand two hundred and seventy-two dollars and fifty-five cents ($46,272.55).

A tax at the rate of $7.43 on the one hundred dollars, on all the property in the township of Weehawken, would produce forty-six thousand two hundred and eighty-eight dollars and fifty-five cents ($46,288.55) being a little more than all the tax required for local purposes in that township in the year 1885. The value of the property of this company, in the township of