The pending bill (HB 177) proposing taxation of railroads would be invalid due to constitutional concerns.

Fishing, hunting, etc., on Sunday, §10751; Intimidating or influencing witness, §10541; Obstructing or impeding justice, §10541; Profane swearing, §10750; Quarreling, rioting, etc., on Sunday, §10751; Trespassing while mining, §10510; Throwing down fences, gates, or bars, §10485; Violating of election laws, §10786. There are no other statutory limitations upon prosecutions for crime in the state of Ohio, and the offense charged, being a felony under the foregoing definition, I am clearly of the opinion that there is no limitation by statute upon the prosecution of the offense charged. It is held in numerous cases in the state of Ohio that the com- mon law as to crimes and offenses and mode of procedure was never in force in the state of Ohio, and I am of the opinion, therefore, that there is no limitation as to time against the crime charged. BILLS-HOUSE BILL NO. 177 (TAXATION OF RAIL- ROADS). February 22, 1907. To the House of Representatives of the State of Indiana: Gentlemen-You have submitted to me House Bill No. 177, and have requested an opinion concerning its constitutionality and its effect upon the present method of taxing railroads in this state. The bill appears to substantially re-enact those portions of the existing statutes relating to sworn statement and inventory to be filed by railroads with county auditors and the auditor of state; but, in addition, provides that electric interurban companies having separate branches or divisions, or owning or operating a street rail- way system, shall return to the auditor of state a separate sworn statement or schedule as to each of such branches, divisions or street railroad systems. The bill further states, in §4, respecting railroad track, that in- terurbans of the classes above mentioned, or those operating or owning two or more roads, "shall, as to each of such roads, branches, divisions or street railroad systems, be separately listed and taxed solely in the several counties, townships, cities and towns through and in which such road, branch, division or street railroad system is operated." A similar provision is inserted in §5 relating to rolling stock. r6-19395] The important distinction between the method of taxation pre- scribed by the general railroad law and that contained in this bill is that in the former the steam railroad is regarded for purposes of assessment as a unit; and the gross valuations of "railroad track" and "rolling stock" are apportioned among the several counties on a mileage basis. The present bill abolishes this system as to interurban and street railways of the classes named and permits assessment of the separate fragments of road lying in the respective counties, towns, and cities, without regard to their constituting parts of an oper- ating plant. Thus, electric lines will be assessed with respect to their property located in the various municipal subdivisions of the state; and will not be required to pay taxes upon that intangible element of their property, known as "franchise'; that element of value which exists by reason of the fact that the system is a going concern and is being operated as a unit. Steam railroads, however, are required to pay taxes upon a gross assessment into which the value of this "franchise" or intangible element enters. Unless there is a reasonable basis for this classifi- cation of railroads into steam and electric, for purposes of assess- ment, the bill violates §193 Burns' Stats. 1901, of the state consti- tution, which declares: "The general assembly shall provide by law for a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation; and shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation for taxation of all property," as well as .,118 and 119 Burns' Stats. 1901, which state: "The general assembly shall not pass local or special laws * * * for the assessment and collection of taxes. * * * In all the cases enumerated in the preceding sec- tion, * * * all laws shall be general and of uniform operation throughout the state." No such reasonable basis appears. While railroads may possi- bly be classified as "steam" and "electric" for purposes of regu- lation under the police power, according to the peculiar conditions surrounding each class, there seems to be no just ground for so classifying them in the exercise of the taxing power; and that such was the understanding of the legislature for a number of years is shown by the act of 1901, extending the word "railroad," as used in the taxing law, to include street and interurban railways. (See Acts 1901, p. 121.) The present method of assessing railways as an operating unit has been thoroughly established by the decisions. See- State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575, 606; Columbia Ry. Co. v. Wright, 151 U. S. 470, 481; Pittsburgh Ry. Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 421; 1 Cooley on Taxation, 3rd, p. 693; and it is recognized as probably the best practical system. To exclude interurban railways therefrom, while continuing it as to steam lines, would constitute a discrimination which rests upon no proper basis. As above pointed out, the mode of assessment here indicated might result in relieving interurbans from a burden which other railways bear. It might also operate to subject them to a burden which other railways escape. Under the prevailing system the total assessed valuation is dis- tributed along the entire line, and the various rates of taxation at- tach according to the proportion of such valuation which is al- lotted to the several municipal subdivisions. In cities this rate will be higher, and in the country lower; but, under the method provided by this bill, the higher city rate attaches to a larger pro- portion of the total valuation than would attach in such city under the old law, and a probable result will be an increase of taxes against these companies. It will not do to say that the possible advantage accruing to electric roads by reason of excluding their franchises from taxa- tion is an offset to the disadvantage of increased city and town taxation, last above referred to; for it is not at all certain the one would counterbalance the other. My opinion, therefore, is that the bill, if enacted, would be in- valid. Replying to your second question, I am of the opinion that while the bill, if enacted, would not expressly alter the present mode of assessing steam railroads, it might be employed by the latter as the basis for an argument that the policy-of the state was not to tax the intangible elements of value in railway corporations; and the method now in use might thus be brought again in question in the courts.