Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/284

248 548 HARVARD LAW REVIEW abundantly justified by the demands of the "harmonious relations between the states and the national government." The dissent in these two Indiana cases added nothing to what Mr. Justice Bradley had said in the Pullman case. Justices Bradley and Lamar were no longer on the bench. Only Justices Harlan and Brown remained of those who had disapproved of the Pullman case. They dissent also in the Indiana cases, Mr. Justice Harlan writing a brief opinion devoted chiefly to the contention that Indiana had taxed property which had no situs there. He insists that "the board had no authority to impart to the value of railroad track and rolling stock, within the State, any part of the company's various interests and property without the State." ®^ With this the majority do not disagree. They deny that the state has done so. They say that the value of the property within the state is en- hanced by the fact that it is used in connection with other property without the state. "Each state," says Mr. Justice Brewer, "is entitled to consider as within its territorial jurisdiction and subject to the burdens of its taxes what may perhaps not inaccurately be described as the proportionate share of the value flowing from the operation of the entire mileage as a single continuous road." ^* This he treats as a question distinct from that of whether receipts may be used as a test of the value of property. To this latter ques- tion Mr. Justice Harlan devotes no argument, although the general language of his opinion indicates disagreement on this point as well as on the one that he specifically discusses. Two years later in Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Taggart^^ the doctrine of the Indiana cases was re-afiirmed by an undivided court. The opinion of Mr. Justice Gray consists largely of quota- tions from previous opinions. It says that " the cost of the property, or of its replacement, is by no means a true measure of its value," "^^ and adds that previous authorities have established that the com- missioners had the right and the duty, in estimating the value of the property within the state, to take into consideration the fran- chises granted to the company by sister states, the United States and foreign countries. Plainly a valuation of property by reference " 154 U. S. 421, 438, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1 1 14 (1894). " 154 U. S. 439, 444, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1 1 22 (1894). «» 163 U. S. I, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. IOS4 (1896). " Ibid., I, 28.