Sacramento daily record-union., 1882-05-03

IN TED- ~ fN1. IN roe Outset 20 'lln' l7e
you o. -r-aa rliso7nc pia - hica IL appears from
your letter ii ere l,55.r- und=r
No rl.lroed Compnr oE q er 1- C-ru'ove there'f
has ever a.. np.,d 20 induce t1Ls Bosrd. nr any
member thereof, 20 clmpra1tSe or remit any pAIt
Of t1s tsIas charged against II ia this county.
Tbis arJ In obedience 70 the law 4 1850 sat
ufes 1852 1897. which Is the latest expression
Of the Legislative viii The suhi-c'. dire1ted is
loyal adviser to commence ac-ons IN the nsm7 Of
( tie county against the several railroad companies
70 rec9vsr the tlEe5 charged alnst such companies
Tor the past $40 hsca years surn actions were
re ularly coRmeucst IN the Superior Court ard
prosecuted IS rapidly as the forms Of the law would
Tbe defendants in each action. authorized thereto
hy Se5tcn 997 OF the Code Il Civil Procedure, 70
de time served uuon Lur attsrTeT oG-rs 70 ALLOW
'u1emsi 70 be taken f1r Sd 7al so 90. beng about
% per cant. oi the amount aiimei ON toe eon-
paints OR attorney az once communicated q us
tire contents Of such oEeFs.
TIE POWER OF TIE BoABp
By the provisions Of Section 4045 Of the Political
I Cod We sre charged wi.h the management agd
control q hll suits, without exception, q which the
{ county Of S crsneUt0 might be q p7r'y. IHis de.
volged upon rs the responsibility % rel Ctig
Z cepting the offers made within FIVE days from the
date there + II We accepted the oElrs large sum
Of money would Gt become the property OF the
county snc OF the state II we rejected the oters,
I wl assumed the chanJss of lon< and expensive
litigation and OF paving al costs incurred by both
! sides m case no greater recovery should be hyd.
( The burden q: this litigation would nor under the
upon the couuty, and Ia the lud would usce-sarie
c6HsilDo q great pJl sia'. q the myHev 3us to the
/ county II ans sElll1 be found due 7 hi the
! itus.idn Wleu e. lu'y In on =t.ya VS. d1volved
/ upon Is. We wers ta5n we'd aFf9re u Whist sgu
( state. that tle ' 'I-s-s mest m dc by tho Sta--
I Board Of Equslz3;.on fixed CJucusigtiv the value
of tho property subject to no change BY any tri-
bInsl or person" bat the word concusIy5ly in the
connection in which you use it might convey to the
reader an idea which yCu undoubtedly did not in
tsad to convey, TO Wit tfat in Whatever proceed.
A. nr-H ra4
colciEsy5y prove Itself and could not be attacked.
NOT a QUESTION OF ASSESSMENT.
We were aware that no tribunal and 70 person
/ could change that assessment, but the question
presented 10 Us was not question OF changing an
I assessment The matter had passed beyond that
point aud actions pending in Courts af justice
where rights Claimed on the one side 10 exist by
virtue cf that assessment and denied on the Other
while the assessment could not DC changed vet we
Fere aware that under the provisions OF tho law
that when offered in evidence IN Court Of Justice,
sustain the issue on the mart Of te plaintiff that
assessment ouly became pr!mG jdcis evidence of he
asssssneut Of the property asses eu, 7nd the delip
/ 4uency Of the taxes tSee Sec.ionSTs9 o. the Po-
! !i-icsl Code)
/ Il is nov Necessary NJ course TO state 10 5ou thst
] primo f-c5. ev-1.rc- c1uiI o., aHd free gently Is
! owe. tia iB Court o.: justice by other proofs
/ We were also aware that the supreme Court II The
/ Unit Il states. the lg est triru-ai IA tbs land hsd
held H. the ease o. LuinElia - W. Tie National
Bank (i0l L. $ Rey-s, o. l.3). th.t in Court of
y
authority tIe sti17 SHsrt OF Equalization, plight
be s1cces siuliv schcd aud 0.,rtlIoNn II It could
be sdowa th1t ths Road. IN n1lsux The assessment
had adopted > rule 81 stern i vaiI1s0n tcs ed
70 operate uncquaily, and comr, tlie p1Ities as-
s9gsed q contribute moro than tue.- TVS. sh1se 20
the huIdsns Z government.
We we're also aware that there were many other
ground, when rights Were ciaiined or Drop-lty vas
attempted 20 be taken by virtue Of me jul -ments
or ordsrs cf Boards o. CJur-s, 10 MAJ how high
the character OF ths Board Cos1. u1ou vLch
- FHa- n| RI rrnH s rHNf f1--
essalled
THE DUTY OF TIE BOARD.
Charged BY law with the mann cement srd control
OF these cases i becsLls our imperative d4y, be0r
accepting eiectinZ these offers and sd7i- ting
the people TO tie consequences q such ptsuce or
rejection, to ascertain uelTly as could what
y re the probabilities Of succ-ss. We Hsss't4iaed
and he'd before Us when We considered trc matter
se.er j facts with which y0U Il not ls lv-rs1Ht
among which was ths iact that thl st1Je levy i5r
the fiscal year 1851 vas transmitted from tbs
state ard II Equalization 10 Us IL orttr which
simply rec.ted that the Bare had levied a tax OF
xty.four cents on each hundred dollars fer
state purposes ior that fiscal yesr. Il ohsii=nce 20
that order. W., - The proper t:s aaI place, levied
IA gToss ths Stde tax 81 thls rate. That tax and
al the county tax tor the same e cal year is placed
upon the asses sss4t roll in one column and II one
udistrguShable mass.
The Supreme Court of California, in what Is known
the (" Drainage Tax Case" He- already held that
i the state Board Il Lquaiizatl0n bad lawful
/ authority 20 levy tax of q celts on each 500
5ir. Cooley, both iu his works tsxstion and
/ upon constitutional Law, observes that where an
/ iegl tax blended in mass in the same col
una With TIE ll-el t5X. the eeaiI'y vi5a IS the
whole. THIS Is 2 very high authority that the whole
levy for Sta ard county tax i7r tnat year car
ried upon the assessment Iui Is void, becsnse the
5 ate Bolrd exceeded its Jurisdiction aud authority
! Ia II king such levy. We were satisfied from eyi.
/ derce that the state Bo2rd of Equalization lad
valued the rolling stock ci the Railroad ccinpanies
from sky TO eighty per cent. gher taan it could
I bl replaced for entirely new.
EXCESSIVE As5EssMEETs.
We knew Of our oRn knowledge that the valul.
tioa uf the lard included lin their fEh- 0f way
least three times nigher than Land ut a suIl char
acter was valued Tor purposes Of taxation in this
We knew from the sworn testimony OF a member
/ OF the Safe Bosrd OF Equalization that IN making
up the vaGaipu OF the railroad property that Board
had included in ihs valuation Of such property the
value Of la & alnodAt ot property which never did
belong and never was, 5sses-sble 10 the railroad
companies and ascertsipei that there we're many
facts and circumstances not necessary tu be stated
| here which teui strongly to prove that the Board,
| in the yuaticH 0f the railroad property lad ssta5-
lshed a rule which would bring he ctses within the
! decision OF Cummings vs. Ta= Nati,rai Bauk. ahovs
referred t.. aud thus prevent recovery IL the sew
/ efal sCti. MS psndbg.
| With thi, knowledge oi the cases, with the man
e.tni CONTROL # which We were ch srsed and
! actis upon our hest Judgment AMI und-r ths ad-
vice OF the oficsr sgu@ted ~ Law - our ie.li AT
/ wiser We C3uld not hesitate. there was but ore
/ conclusion at which could arrive; ! c, that it
Wa, duy 70 accept the otIeT made, believing It
be Jar in excess Of any amount likely to DO reoov
/ cred IN the actions
! THE QUESTION OF CoIMU-ATIoH.
You seem to place Great reliance upon Sec.
| ton 10 OF Article AL Of tue state Const..
| tuition, which provides "thdt 40 county
| (ge quote the whole psTt you omtef), city,
! town. or other municipal corporation, the in
habitants thereof, the properly therein, al
be released ds charged non its Or tsgIT proper
tj5Bats share qj ta1es to 10 levied iof state pur
poses Tor shsll any c1mmutatton ior such taxes he
/ authorized in any fCrm ld0t5ver" You it@lc .
! Jhe words, & ~ eng to5Ill tot1tC9ef-' We the
/ words " tileir pF0y1Ttiogate StUr5 u t1Ie3."
1t is well understood that this secucn was passed
! ia order to aiujau equality ~ LlXaton, and not
] To defeat it that passed 10 prevent the II
| equality which mi sht b. caused b. The legislature
reInittiag either 70 the counties, Cities or 10 lnd
vdnals Under some form thar prop05ttonats share
! of The st iax.s Y0u interpret tnat ause oi the
| Constitution as Il READ " No person shall ever he
released from any taxes charged to them, although
/ sucd taxes may exceed their pr9poJtoGate snare.
Your Interpretation wouiu entirely defeat the ob-
! CTS aud purposes CT the section. Under TINS sec
lion it Is not competent to discharge body. From
whst9 Why from their py1gof'oHate share q
ta1ss IN Tie nature Of things, there must he many
ways IN which counties, towns. or il rdviduIs rlsht
be discharged from an amount laid in excess Of
ther proporiOnate share, for as 70 the excess II
| would not be taxation At all, but conf cation
THE COMPROMISE.
u
! commute the Iroporsionate share OF taxes OF any
person; nor did We lower or interfere win any
| assessment or c1mpfomiSe any taxes. We author-
lied our attorney TO acc pt the oneF maze by ths
companies 10 allow tuGsaent to be taken hgalns-
them for specified sums, which sums we believed 70
be Greater than the amount Of any legal tax due
from them. We did not, you suppose, " c0uIess
= doubt as to the validity OF our fundamental law
We assumed its validity and acted under 1t and The
statutes passed to carry IL Into effect, although al
Ne same time We have grave doubts which are
shared IN Common with by many eminent and
uninteTesied liwyers--thdt the whole system under
which these taxes laid Is in violation oil tue
highest law Of the land. We know that few, il any,
eitzets OF this county would willingly submit 10 It,
We believe you would not. We readily under
stand why you sitting IN your comfort be Office,
with no very great State interests NJ stake, may
reason out that II Is well TO take the chances on
law SUIT, ana win or lose the whole. We are differ
entity situated in respect TO this matter Our re-
sponsoiy IS direct; we come dsily in contact with
the people OF our county; their hospitals and their
schoos must be maintained, their roads and bridges
kept IL repair, and We are charged with providing
the funds
This briugl US to realization of our duties. and
whilst as individuals, whilst as State ctcers sit
ting 1t distance, might be strongly sposed to
la-e the chances, and piale the Vhole sum on the
+ ck'eSs nazFd Of au expensive lawsuit yet of-
noeIs ai-.G'ly responsible = our people, and
charged with the maintenance OF tue local govern
ment We were and still If the Opuion that to
/ have done 50 wouif not have been an exercise Of
sound judgment, but tat such IN act would have
mounted t. 4 criminal disregard Of our obligations.
20 THREATs; 10 FEAHs.
Your refer in your letter to threats by railroad
companies 70 frghtDn local Boards into copr mise
Let Us say TO you that no threats made BY the COM
pau!es nave ever CONS to our kDoWelEe, nor have
| we been in the least fuehteued by them. All the
threats ths Board has kesrl In the premises Nave
come directly from your ohce, and IS FAR as We are