Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-03-04
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE.
TwENTY-FouRrH sEssroN-sIxrIErH DAY.
SENATE.
SACRAMENTO, March 8, 1854.


Governor Mansfield by c. A. Wetmore Of the Viticult
ura Commission expressing his desire to have mum
Der OF Photographic representations executed by
Bosqui of different varieties OF California grapes
placed on the desks of members and framed by th
| Senators for the ornamentaton of their homes.
| Mr.. JOHNSON moved to reconsider the vote where
by S. B. 224 appropriating money for Hastings Law
| College, was passed yesterday.
| Mr.. NEUMANN moved to lay the motion on the
| table. Carried.
| Mr. SArTEKwHITE moved to reconsider the vote
whereby A. b. 152-Mr. Hartson's election bil-was
| passed.
| The above motion was also laid on the table,
Mr.. DAVIS, Chairman of the Committee Eduea.
tion, reported back the school bill, with amend
ments.
Mr. JOHNSON moved to suspend the rules, and take
| up from the file A. B. 70, to provide remedy in
cases where damages have been sustained by the
illegal proceedings Of municipal officers and for the
payment OF the same (by Mr.. Gilmore)
The roll was called, and the motion lost by vote
of II ayes to 20 noes
Mr. JOHNSTON, Chairman of the Committee en-
Swamp and Overlooked Lands, recommended the
swamp lands. He moved that the bill be read a
second time and ordered engrossed
The CHAIR decided that consideration of the
school bill took priority of all other motions.
The roll was called and the bill passed by vote
of "a to l.
Mr. Jehnston's motion was put and carried, and
A. B. 4SS was ordered to a third reading.
On motion of Mr.. JOHNSON, the above bill was
made the special order for tomorrow morning, i'm
mediatelJ after the reading OF the Journal.
The Finance Committee recommended the passage
of A. B. AIS. with amendments.
Mr. WENDELL moved to consider the above bill
Immediately. Carried
The amendment recommended by the committee
was then read by the Secretary. In effect 1t pro.
vided that any corporation might petition the State
Board of Equalization for reduction of its
ment and produce proofs that such assessment was
too high II the assessment was deemed too high
the corporation could, within ten days after the
PAYMENT of the tax, bring suit in the Superior
Court of Sacramento county for the payment of
such portion OF the tax paid as was found to be
cessive The Supreme Court was given appellate
jurisdiction as in all other cases.
Mr. CHASE briefly opposed the amendment, on the
ground that it substantially killed the bill.
Mr. HILL also was opposed to its adoption. 1t
provided in sort of conditional way, "may let
these people" when it ought to be :" shall" He
favored the passage of the bill just as it came from
the Assembly Its object was to correct certain
errors upon which railroad companies had taken ex.
ceptons and upon which suits were now instituted
in fifty-one ffty-two counties OF the State He
trusted that the amendment would be voted down,
and that the BILL if passed at all, would be passed
Just as it came from the Assembly.
Mr.. WENDELL hoped the amendment would not be
adopted. This bill came in from the Assembly hav-
ing one simple purpose, which was to correct an
error made in the revenue law at the last session.
1t plain and simple and should have been passed
If the amendment was adopted it would kill the bill
and would make it one OF the most vicious bills that
ever came before this body. 1t co ltravened the
Constitution. The State Board OF Equalization, by
the Constitution was vested with the power to make
| assessments, but this amendment proposed that
the Superior Court Of Sacramento county should
make on assessment upon the railroad company. 1t
provided in the first place, that testimony should
be taken before the State Board OF Equalization,
and that they should determine upon that, IN exer
cising their judgment as assessors. Assessors had
always been reQaired to exercise their own judg-
mept from all the knowledge they could gather
relative TO the value of the property. If the assess
1 nf t,<,
proved unsatisfactory to the railroad company, the
suit should be tried in the Superior Court of Sacra-
mento county, at the very headquarters of the
greatest raal corporations in the State, and that
Court should determine the value OF the property,
and what it should be assessed for. What became
of the State Board of Equalization which the CoDst-
tuition said should assess railroad property? The
ultimate assessment in all cases was made in the
Superior Court of Sacramento county, upon the evi
dence that might happen to be introduced in the
case and the evidence brought by the officer repre-
senting the State could III case be as full CON-
plete as that adduced by the railroad company.
The speaker knew when the railroad company
used to come before the Board of his county for a
reduction OF its assessments and its witnesses were
asked what was the value of the road, they would
answer "Well, / don't know haven't heard of
anv railroads beng sold lately | don't know of
any railroads in the market. The cost of the road
is not its value We have tunnel our road, but
that tunnel don't add anything to the value of the
road The railroad would be just as valuable ii the
tunnel was not there. We have so much iron there
and SO many ties and spikes there and they cost so
mu h say S. 600 per mile, and that is all the rail-
road is worth" Most OF the witnesses would neces-
sariy be men actually in the employ of the road,
and the State would find it difficult to introduce ev-
dence showing what these institutions were really
worth.
| The speaker concluded by claiming that the
| amendment entirely foreign to the object and
purpose OF the bill
Mr.. SEARs-I supported this bill in all of its
phases as it came from the Assembly, and still |
4 It, ln,,a IfafaYN nod
the reading of the amendment, and | cannot see
the objections which Senator Wendell urges, if |
| understand the reading of the amendment.
would prefer to have the amendment printed, so
that we might examine it more thoroughly. The
amendment provides appeal from the State
Board of Equalization where the Board can place
an arbitrary assessment upon the railroad property
Now what objection is there to that? 1t provides
that they shall furnish their proof to the State
Board OF Equalization if assessed too high, and then
| a suit may be brought in the Superior Court and
there is an appeal from that Superior Court to the
Supreme Court of the State. l think there ought
don't think the Board OF Equalization ought to
to possess arbitrary power to assess that
property at any sum they have mind
to- The Constitution requires them to
assess it at its actual value. Now suppose they
assessit at twice its actual value Oughtn't there
to be some remedy? | think there ought. This
bill provides that an appeal may be had from the
assessment fixed by the Board of Equalization, and
that after the is finally adjudicated the Su-
preme Court shall determine that the assessment
had been arbitrary and that above the actual
value. Then the company gets rebate. That is
all there is to it, l cannot see how it involves the
consttutioraty of the whole bill 1t seems to me
the amendment is just and proper one. If
thought it involved the constutionality of the bill
at all wouldn't support it but | cannot for the
life of me see how it does, and cannot see how 1t
works an injury. But | think that it has in its
operations tendency to do justice to all parties,
which all desire to see done. 1t provides that
IL. a.l,,1I
these cases, that it may be finally determined
whether the State Board of Equalization has as
sessed their property at its actual value.
Mr.. WEsT-Do you think it equitable and right
and proper that the people OF Los Angeles and San
Diego counties should come up here to Sacramento
to try their cases here?
Mr. SEARs-So far as that is concerned | am not
particular in what county these cases are tried |
suppose the object of placing the jurisdiction here
in Sacramento county because the Board of
Equalization is located and fixed here by law. You
can have your suit brought in any other county you
WISH but that will only cause expense and confu-
sion 1t simpfes the thing to have it tried here
where the Board of Equalization is lawfully placed
and where the Attorney General resides. Now as /
said before, when the Assessor their prop
erty-the County Assessor-at more than the actual
value, they have appeal 20 the County Board of
Equalization The State Board has an arbitrary
power. They can assess property at any value. l
say that no body of men should have that power
and believe it is right and proper that the az peal
should be taken, and the matter adjudicated accord
ing to the equities of the between all parties
Mr.. JoHNsoN-I simply rise to explain, in answer
to the gentleman from Los Angeles that this pro-
vdes that suits sha be brought in any county as
understand the reading Of it, but then the Board of
Equalization may demand its trial in Sacramento
county. 1t leaves it with the Board Of Equalization
and NJ with the person disputing the tax.
Mr.. DAvIs-It seems to me manifest that the Sen
ators who opposed to this amendment do not
understand it. Now, am in the condition of SEN
ator Sears far the support of this bill from the
Assembly is concerned | supported it yesterday
II no amendments passed, / should support the
bill as it now stands. But this amendment is so
manifesty Just, and it seems to me SO necessary
that this Senate ought not to hesitate to adopt the
amendment. Now what does the amendment
provide fort The theory of the Senators who
have spoken against it is that the State
Board Of Equalization should be granted power
which it is dangerous to invest anywhere right
we do not invest except IN the highest Court in the
land-with the exception of the Railroad Commits
| sioners. Now, say it is not right or safe or
proper that Board of Equalization which has
placed in its hands he rights of property that its
decision should be final and there should be no an
peal to any source whatever. We say that the
Courts ought to decide the grievances of the people
of this State in respect to their person and their
property. This provision relative to the county of
Sacramento is put in here for the accommodation of
the State Board of Equalization knowing that it has
Its office here, and all of its books and papers are
kept here and it is only the demand of the State
Board OF Equalization that the action is brought to
Sacramento county. An appeal may be taken from
the Court below to the Supreme Court, and there
the matter finally adjudIcatei Ii the company wins
| the case there is simply rebate made on the
amount of its tax. / submit to this Senate that
there is nothing unfair, unwise unjust in this