National Republican., 1882-12-26
Are Incorporated Persons Outlaws.

The New York Times has long editorial
argument of the tax case from California
which occupied three days of last week in
the supreme court. The imp of the perverse,
which always presides over the columns of
that bewildering journal, never excelled in
msstatement the effort before us. He says
that Mr.. CoNKLING, in his argument, made
+" an attempt to stretch the fourteenth amend
ment of the constitution of the United
the taxing power Of the states" This is a
Misrepresentation which nevercould have been
honestly made by any man who had read
statement of the case and the issues it
presented. 1t is like mountain, gross and
palpablc Neither Mr.. CoNKLING, Mr.. Ed
NfUNDs, nor Mr. SANDERsoN, who were all ar
rayed on the same side, ever made or thought
of so silly suggestion as that corporations
could not be taxed by the states. All they
contended for was that property of a given
class must be equally taxed with all other
property of that class. The county of
San Mateo, in California, violated this
simple rule The party aggrieved came
equal taxation was denial of the equal pro-
lection of the laws of California, and there
fore contrary to the fourteenth amendment
to the constitution Of the United States. The
writer in the Times says I" it is novel propo-
sition that the fourteenth amendment will
operate to prevent any state from taxing cor
porations in a different manner or to a greater
1. A.
state are taxed" Let us see. Suppose the
New York Central railway company
should purchase an undivided one-half
interest in the Fifth Avenue hotel in New
York city. Could the half thus purchased be
taxed Sin different manner or to a greater
taxed" who remain the owners of the. other
half? The stock of the New York Central
railway is owned By persons, and the fourteenth
amendment declares that no state shall deny
to any person the equal protection of the law.
DO citizens become outlaws when they form
themselves into a corporation under the
laws of state? If so, their persons
as TeH as their property are beyond the pale,
and state may make the killing of them a
misdemeanor, punishable by five dollar
fine, while for the murder of persons not so
incorporated the gallows tree shall still cast
its awful shadow. This is the logic of such
trash as the following from the Times arti-
Gle "The fourteenth amendment certainly
could not have been intended to correlate
corpora tons with citizens, or with
persons whose rights might be inn
periled by the Determinations of state
laws" If there is any sense in this alleged
argument then states may derive their reye-
nues wholly from those of their citizens who
do business under incorporated associations,
while all the Others go untaxed. Says the
Times in conclusion:
The argument of Mr.. CoNKLING seems to be in
tended to induce the supreme court of the United
States to interpose between corporations and state
legislatures to prevent the latter from taxing reg
ulating, restricting or in any way dealing with
the former by methods applicable TO them, but in
no way applicable TO "peTSOns" in the proper
sene Of that word. To expect any such straining
Of the constitution for any such purpose is TO ex-
pee the supreme court to stultify itself through
sympathy with Mr., CoNKLISG's peculiar method
Of reasoning.
If this is not the mere hardihood of igno'
rance treading upon ground Ofwhich 1t knows