REPORT. OFFICE OF THE STATE BOARD OF ASSESSORS, In conformity with the requirements of law, the State Board of Assessors respectfully present to the Legislature the advance sheets of their Fourth Annual Report, which deals with the taxation of railroad property, and other corporations taxable under the laws of 1884. The necessity for the adoption of this form, "advance sheets," which has been followed in all our annual reports, was fully explained in our report of 1885, as follows: This form, "advance sheets," being the same as that adopted last year, seems to be necessary, in order that the Legislature shall, at an early period in its session, be informed as nearly as possible of the outcome of the work of the Board, and of the amount of revenue that may be calculated on therefrom. The completed report cannot be made in time to meet this requirement for the following reason: After the yearly valuation of the railroad and canal property is completed, the tax thereon assessed, and the schedules delivered to the Comptroller on the first day of December, as required by law, so much of the work of the Board, with the reasons which have governed them in arriving at their conclusions, can be given to the Legislature. But all this work, by the terms of the law, is subject to revision at a later day, as provided by the 15th section of the act, as follows: "15. And be it enacted, That the said Board of Assessors shall meet on the third Monday of December, at the State House, in Trenton, for the purpose of reviewing their assessment; and may adjourn from day to day, until they have finished the hearing; upon the written complaint of any company or any person considering itself or himself aggrieved, and specifying the grievance, or of the Attorney-General, or any member of the Board, on behalf of the State, that the property of any company is assessed too low, either in the whole or in any taxing district, or that property has been omitted, they shall review the said assessment and correct the same as shall appear just." It will be seen that the Board does not convene, in their appellate capacity, until late in December, and the experience of past years proves that these appeals cannot be heard, and the various complaints examined and adjusted, until long after the assembling of the Legislature. And it is necessary to have whatever corrections are needful and proper made before the extensive schedules and tables can be compiled with entire accuracy. This plan was adopted last year, and the figures and statistics found in the full report are the corrected figures after the revision. The same course will be pursued this year. As stated in our last Annual Report, at the time of its presentation, the Board was engaged in reviewing the assessments for 1886, as required by the 15th section of the act. In this department of the Board's work, its labors have been very largely increased by the ruling of the Supreme Court, given in the opinion delivered by the Chief Justice, December 20, 1886, in the case of "The Central Railroad of New Jersey and the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad vs. The State Board of Assessors.” The Chief Justice says: "Before, however, entering upon the consideration of these topics, it appears to us proper to premise that the mode adopted in bringing these procedures before the court must not be taken as an approved precedent for future action. In the present instances the course taken has been this: The State Board made its assessments, and the companies feeling themselves aggrieved appealed to the Board for a review, as they were entitled to do by force of a provision to that effect in the statute; from the adjudication thus resulting, the proceedings were removed to this court by these certioraries, and thereupon, in pursuance of authority given by a rule of court, testimony was taken, and it is upon that testimony that the cases have been heard and are now to be decided by us. From this statement it is evident that, as the matter stands, we are trying these matters de novo, and are not altogether reviewing the action of the State Board. We do not think that the statute justifies such a proceeding; it does not appear to have been the legislative design to throw upon us such a burden as this, or to convert the court into a Board of Assessors to ascertain the values of this vast mass of multifarious property, founding its judgment on evidence taken under its authority and for the first time introduced into the case. Our interpretation of this part of the statute is, that it requires the substantial case to be laid in extenso before the State Board, and exceptions to be there taken, and that it is the case so made, so far as it has been excepted to, that is removable to this court for review. In our opinion, no general rule to take new evidence should be allowed by this court, either on the allowance of the certiorari or upon its return. This is evinced by the general adjustments of the section giving this remedy and particularly by the fact that a certiorari is not permitted, " unless the applicant has applied to the board to review the assessment." The result, in the present instance, should serve as a warning to the court against any endeavor to try these, cases anew on these appellate proceedings, as we have in our hands several volumes of arithmetical details, which, to understand in their various applications, would require months of labor." It will be seen from this deliverance that, in all cases to be reviewed on certiorari by the Supreme Court, all of the testimony and proofs to be used in each case must be made, on the complaint or appeal before the State Board of Assessors; and that "no general rule to take new evidence should be allowed by the court, either on the allowance of the certiorari or its return.” Under this ruling, a large part of the winter and spring was occupied in taking testimony in the thirty-eight cases appealed. The rooms of the Board were converted into a semi-judicial tribunal, wherein the various protesting companies were represented by many of the ablest lawyers at the bar, and the interests of the State defended by the learned Attorney-General and his associates-with many hundreds of printed pages of testimony as the result. Ever since the creation of the Board its work has been largely increased by the persistent litigation of very many of the rail road corporations, on a variety of points, beginning with a challenge of the constitutionality of the law of 1884, and followed by appeals in endless profusion from the valuations of the Board, and objections to the methods adopted for arriving thereat. This branch of the work has been rendered much more onerous both in the past and present year by the ruling of the Supreme Court, above alluded to; and the work of the AttorneyGeneral's office has been increased to a marvelous extent. thereby. Happily, there is every reason to believe that we shall have less of this character of work in the future. Nearly all of the questions in dispute have been settled by the courts. The constitutionality of the law has been affirmed by the highest tribunal of the State; and the methods of procedure by the Board under the law, and their conclusions as to value, have been subjected to the fullest judicial investigation, and have been sustained by the courts, save on one or two minor points, which will make no appreciable change in the total tax levied for the State. After larger experience in their multiform work, and a careful and critical analysis of the subject, the Board has no hesitation in confirming the views expressed in their previous reports, that the railroad corporations, under the act of 1884, are paying no more than their just share of taxation, based upon the true value of their property and the special privileges granted them by the State. And we believe that, in the light of these recent judicial decisions, the railroad corporations themselves are coming to see that nothing is to be gained by further resistance to the law of 1884; and are fast reaching the conclusion that, under this law, as administered by the Board, the taxation of this class of property, as compared with that of all others, is, to say the least, approximately just. The evidence of this fact is found in the greatly reduced number of applications for writs of certiorari. Last year there were forty-one companies to whom writs were allowed touching the assessments of 1885. This year, notwithstanding many of the companies have entered complaints, and are claiming reductions on some of the minor valuations, only eleven have applied for writs of certiorari, to review the assessments of 1886; and of these four are upon points made last |