Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-04-15
THE RAILROAD TAX CASES.
The following has been issued by the At
torney- General, and is claimed by him TO be
a full presentation of the case on his side:

| The following has been issued by the At
torney- General and is claimed by him to be
full presentation of the case on his side:
SACRAMENTO, April =, 1882.
| To The importance OF the subject, as well
as the effort being made by the several railroad
companies of this State to induce the local author
ties of the several counties to attempt compromises
that are inhibited by the PLAIN provisions OF the
Constitution, impresses me with the necessity, in
the strict performance of an undoubted legal duty,
of adopting this means of advising against the
| attempted illegal exercise OF powers which have
| been SO clearly committed to another tribunal.
| 1t is not my purpose, in so advising you, to at
tempt discussion of the question as to the amou 1t
of the assessment compared with the actual value
| Of the property assessed. My purpose, as well as
my duty and yours, is to deal with the question of
| your power-a question of law purely-leaving to
the several companies the privilege Of settling as to
| the amount OF assessment with the State Board of
Equal zaton that Board having been created by the
Constitution, and vested with exclusive jurisdic
| ton over such matters.
1t would seem that after the decision of the case
| OF The People vs. The Board OF Supervisors of Sac
| ramento county, in which the power of that Board
| to interfere with assessments made by the State
| Board of Equalization expressly denied, no ad.
| vice upon this subject, other than mere citation
OF that decision, ought to he necessary but the at
| tempt subsequently made by the same Board, act
ing under the advice of the learned District Attor-
uey of that county, to accomplish in another form of
| proceeding that which the Supreme Court had al.
| ready told them they could not do serves to con-
| vince me that prompt performance OF my ownd duty
| IN the premises may avoid misrepresentation fol-
| lowed by unwarranted attempts at compromise,
| with their consequent complications and delays.
| The decision in the case just mentioned, clearly
| maintaining that such assessments exempted
from local interference was in consonance with the
spirit of the Constitution, and ought to have been
sufficient to admonish the Honorable Board against
which it WINS directed to refrain from another effort
| at the same thing in another form but it would
seem that some of the Boards OF Supervisors, in
| plU1jnO that Of Sacramento couuty while fuly
| aware that they may not directly reduce these
| sessments, assume the power, by illegal compro-
misses, to indirectly do so. 1t is a rule always
adopted in the construction of Constitutions, that
what cannot be done directly cannot be done indi
| recty. The Constitution deals with substance, not
shadows. The inhibition was leveled at the thing,
| not the name Ii the inhibition can be
evaded by the form of the enacment(or proceeding
its insertion in the fundamental law was vain and
| futile proceeding" Cummings vs. Missouri,
| Wal, 325)
| The compromise now proposed by the railroad
companies is but another name for the exercise Of
supervisory power the State Board by local all
thorites, and the reduction Of assessments made by
that Board, whether directly made, or made under
\ another name, would be violation OF the funda-
mental principles of the Constitution, and therefore
| void.
| In addition to the above however, there is an
| other strong reason why neither State nor local
authorities have power 20 compromise any portion
of tax, whether the same is owing to the State or
| to county district. The Constitution of this
State provides All property in this State shall be
taxed in proportion to its vae TO be ascertaned as
| provided by law"
In cases OF railroads running through than
one county, the value mentioned in that provision
| of the Constitution, is required by the law to he
ascertained by the State Board of Equaliz alton.
Section TO- Article KILL Constitution OF California;
| When that valuation is ascertained, in the man
ner provided by the Board created by the Constitu
tion the value then fixed becomes conclusiysy the
value of the property, subject to change by any
tribunal person, unless in the instrument confer
ring the power and jurisdiction upon the assessing
Board some right OF appeal t. some other tribunal
is given or provided for. Cooley on Taxation, 533,
| 534, 537, 540)
An interference, therefore, with the assessment
made by the State Board would nece ssary result in
contemplation of law in the creation OF inequality
OF taxation and this you would be powerless to do
even in case OF express leg isaton authorizing it,
10 the case OF Wilson vs.. Supervisors of Suffer
| County, our own Supreme Court had occasion to
pass upon this question. reading OF that will
show you that it a much stronger case in favor
Of the power than the under consideration here.
In that case it appears that the Legislature had
pressly authorized the Supervisors to remit por-
| ton OF certain taxes; and the Supreme Court,
passing upon the validity OF that statute and an
order made Hereunder by the Board of Supervisors
| said " An order which RENTS the taxes upon any
property within the district causes the taxation
within the district to be unequal and is virtually an
exemption OF such property from taxation; and if
the order RENTS part OF the tax such property
the result is the same, it differing only in degree
l
mentioned, providing that said Board, in their dis
cte,ion and for good cause shewn, shall remit such
other tax in said district may TO them seem just
| aud proper and the order OF the Board of Super
yisors purportiDg to remit such taxes is, IN our
opinion, repugnant to the provisions OF the Cons
Triton above cited, and must be held null and void
| az Cal, 91(
In the case of The State vs. Mining Company Is
Nevada, 2S4, in which the District Attorney sought
| t. compromise action brought to recover Il X
| and that tax had been subsequently ratified by an
Act of the Legislature passed after the entry of the
| judgment, the Supreme Court reversed the judg-
| meut, hol5ing that the attempted compromise,
resulting it must in unequal taxation, was in vio
lation OF the Constitution.
These cases are sufficient to illustrate the general
proposition and to show the entire absence of any
| authority to compromise. But it is apparent that
any attempted exercise Of such authority by local
Boards would entirely upset the sy stem created by
the Constitution Many reasons existed, at the
time the Constitut on adopted for the creation
of State Board II Equalization, not the least
among which was the uniformity in valuation
throughout the seyerI counties which the system
adopted must produce, ami the removal Of the
power to assess in such from local tribunals
whose lu lgmentS in such cases are ordinarily as
varied rs those tribunals are numerous. The reduc
ion OF the valuation IN one county, without CORE
spending reduction in all the other counties through
which the particular road runs necessarily results
in z destruction OF the uniformity which the Con-
stitution intends to provide. Let it be known
that local authorities may indirectly reduce the as
se.sments made by the State BOari, by the compro-
mise actions Instituted for the recovery of taxes
due upon such assessments, and 1t will soon be
found that but little use remains for the existence
OF that Board.
Section 10, of Article II, of the Constitution,
however, sets the question at rest That section
provides " No county nor the inhat.
tants thereof the property therein, shall be
leased discharged from its or their proportionate
share of taxes to be levied for State purposes nor
shall Communication for such taxes be authorized in
any form whatsoever.
II reSlis that attemDt at cOmprOmisp of s1Icb
taxes would be in of the power Of your Board
and of the District Attorney, ard would therefore
be a void pro ,eeding.
Aside from this question OF power, 4 question OF
policy arises The Supreme Court OF this State has
already passed upon all the points made by the
railroad company, from the constitutional question,
involving the construction OF the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution OF the United
States to the minor questions involving the fol NAL
tiles pursued by the Board in making the levy. Is.
f. and n p X. X. Co. VS.. State Board of Equaza-
ton c. P. r. r. Co. State Board Of Equaliza-
tion.) Ordinarily, the determination of question
by that high tribunal is sufficient, until it is over.
ruled to justify State and couaty authorities in fol-
lowing it, but in cases OF taxes upon railroad prop.
eIty il seems mere threat to seek redress in the
United States Supreme Court IS been sufficient, in
counties, to frIghten the local Boards into
ceptng such compromises, attempted compro-
misses as might be dictated BY the several CON-
panies.
The effect of such proceedings is to confess
doubt as to the validity OF our fundamental law, in
a respect which Is OF the most vital importance to
the people, and to permit the parties assessed in
such practically to assess themselves. II
there be any doubt to the validity of those pro-
visions Of our Constitution which authorize such
assessments to be made, it is better that we should
suffer the temporary inconvenience resulting from
litigation of that subject than that the State should
surrender to the taxpayer; it is better that we
should know whether our Constitution is valid or
invalid and to that end should test the question,
even at the risk Of losing the whole Of the tax for
few years. Ii our Constitution is in conflict with
the Constitution Of the United States it is OF the
highest Importance that we learn that such is true
at the earliest practicable moment in order that we
NAV make one that will stand the test of judicial
scrutiny but it is respectfully suggested that COM
promise now will necessitlte compromise in the
conf years, and this neither you the State can
afford to submit to.
1t may not be improper to suggest here that it
has been said, on behalf of the ilroad companies,
that those companies aA willing to pay proportion
of the taxes assessed against them, their only de-
sire being contest that portion of the tax which
has been levied upon what they believe TO be the
excess in the assessed value the actual value Of
the property. There can be no objection to the ac-
ceptance, a payment on account Of any part OF
the tax conceded by the companies to be due, pro-
vded that in should a receipt in full be
given. except upon payment OF the entire tax. In
this manner the tax admitted TO be just may be
paid in for the use OF the counties and the State
and the question TO the payment Of the contested
balance can be tigated in proper proceedings to be