Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors][merged small]

OFFICE OF THE STATE BOARD OF ASSESSORS,
TRENTON, N. J., January 5th, 1887.

To the Legislature of New Jersey:

The State Board of Assessors, in compliance with the law which requires that "They shall annually report to the Legislature," respectfully present the advance sheets of their third annual report to be followed with the full details of their completed work for 1886, as soon as the review provided for in the fifteenth section of the act of April 10th, 1884, and the necessary revision shall be completed. The inability of the Board to have their revised work completed in time for presentation at the meeting of the Legislature was fully explained in the report of last year, to which we beg to refer.

At the time when the last annual report was prepared it will be remembered that the constitutionality of the act of April 10th, 1884, (printed herewith, appendix, Exhibit A.,) entitled "An act for the taxation of railroad and canal property," by which this Board was created, and under the provisions of which it had assessed the taxes against this class of corporations, had been challenged by many of the railroad companies, and the question had been brought before the Supreme Court by writs of certiorari for adjudication. The arguments in the case had been made by the Attorney General and his associates on behalf of the State, and on the other side, by eminent counsel representing the contesting railroads. The case was closed, so far as the arguments of counsel were concerned, but the opinion of the Court was not delivered until the February term of 1886. It is generally known, that the decision of the Supreme Court was against the constitutionality of the law, in an elaborate opinion delivered by the Chief Justice, on the ground that it contravened the provision of the

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »