Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-09-28
TIE RAILROAD AND THE STATE RIVE.
hue SYSTEM.

SAal ALC1 ibatO Ao oo Phfcs@S1A
pleas in evasion of their just responsible
ties. They were ready and willing at all
times to pay their proper share of taxes.
They objected solely to the fragrant dis.
elimination set up against them by the
State. They claimed that they were by
the Constitution and laws deprived Of
equal protection, and denied the due pro-
cess of law. And these claims they have
made good to the satisfaction of the United
States Circuit Court. They asserted that
railroads operated in more than one county
are denied protection under the laws, which
% require that property shall be taxed in
proportion to its value; ~ require that
such proportion shall be ascertained By a
general law; (3) require that, before LA.
bility is fixed, an opportunity to be heard
must be given; az give an appeal from the
assessor to another tribunal (5) require
the assessment to be made in the county,
and forbid its being made in localities dis
tant from the saaS of the property; (6)
prescribe the mode and manner of the as
sessment; % allow deduction for in6ebt-
edness secured by mortgage. The laws
provide that all these provisions shall
apply to all other property but that of
railroad corporations. The latter are
taken GU. from under the operation of the
laws, set apart, and denied the rights and
immunities which all other taxpayers en-
Joy. To say that this is not deprivation
of the rights guaranteed to all citizens un.
to assert that there can be no such thing as
discrimination.
The truth is that the Constitutional Con-
vention deliberately set out to impose
special burdens upon railroads. They dis
eliminated Intentionally, and with malice
propenss. They meant to be unjust to
the corporations, to single them out for
tyrannical and oppressive taxation, and
they did so. They were warned at the
time, by this and other journals, that they
were building structure which could not
stand. But they shared the common
fallacy that a popular body can do what.
ever it pleases, regardless of right or
justice, and they thought when they had
drafted and adopted the articles dealing
with corporations that they had settled the
whole matter defnitively. Their work was
but fresh illustration OF the futility of
all legislation which is not based on equity
If it were possible for any State in the
Union to establish such fragrant discrimi.
nations, to single out one class of property
owners for punishment by taxation in the
form OF contiscation, then the war against
secession and all the constitutional amend
ments resulting from it would have been
in vain, and there would be nothing to
prevent the dissolution of the Union in
mob-tyranuy and anarchy. And observe
how inevitably all such attempts to over
ride principles of justice and equity defeat
themselves. Had the Constitutional Con-
vention adopted an uniform and equitable
revenue system, as it was il duty bound
to do, the corporations would have paid
their taxes without protest or resistance,
and there would have been no interruption
to the even progress of State administra-
ton. But because the Con stItution Il Con-
vention was in the hands OF demagogues
and fanatics, they framed provisions so
hagrantly unjust that the moment they
were submitted to a Federal Court they
were of necessity declared invalid.
Nothing can be more unreasonable than
to assert that the corporations are response
bic for any loss to the State which may oc.
cur. They were compelled to defend their
rights. They had no alternative. They
could not, az trustees in trust for others,
tamely submit to the gross and wanton
injustice sought to be inflicted upon them.
Taay could not, from any rational stand
point, be expected to allow presidents OF
this kind to be established. they were
denied the equal protection of the laws,
and they could only appeal to the Courts
to protect them, and restore to them the
rights OF which it was sought to deprive
them. AS TO the reality OF the discrimina.
ton against them, no intelligent person can
for moment doubt it. Judge Field in his
decision, as cited by us yesterday, has
made this SO plain that 1t ia impossible to
miss it. Il is therefore the makers Of
tlo C,p,E;E,, I;on 1rT,, ,,,,,ek ha boIJ 80
sponsible for whatever injury may accrue
to the State from the overthrow Of their
original provisions. They deliberately set
the authority of the State against that of
the United States. They declared that
State might and should deny to any persons
the equal protection of the law, and might
deprive them of property without due pro.
cess of law. They thus challenged the
Federal Government, and squarely ira
varsed the authority and scope of the
Fourteenth Amendment, and the de-
cision of the Circuit Court invalid ting
their work Is just what ought to have
been anticipated, and just what the RE.
CORD. UNION predicted while the Conven.
ton was in session.
And now it remains to be ascsrtained
what remedy can be applied. The rational
and common-ssDse course evidently is to
acquiescs in the Inevitable; abandon a
scheme of taxation which has been declared
unconstitutional and put the corporations
On the same basis a. regards taxation as all
the rest of the people. Tho demagogues
and knaves whose evil counsels have led
TO all this trouble are, we trust, thoroughly
disc-edited by the results of their policy.
The public must at length realize that
nothing can be gained by efforts to traruple
under foot the fundamental principles OF
republican government. Any attempt to
substitute for the Invalid methods which
have proved so futile, others based upon
similar principles, would OF course be sim.
pie faulty. It needs no aoumen to per.
ceive that the result OF such en- experiment
would be identical with the one now
before US. The lesson Of Judge Field
| decision is that go long as the United
States Constitution stands no State can
deal unjustly with any of its citizens in