The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-12-22
LATEST TELEGRAM.
The san Mateo Case.

Washington, 2l.-Attorney-G General
hart continued his argument before the
Supreme Court, in the San Msteo case,
this morning. He disputed the position
taken by counsel for the Southern Pa
ciic Company, that there had been an
unequal assessment Of railroad property.
There had been uniform rate OF assess
ment of al property. bat there had also
been classification of property, and this
classification counsel for the company
had argued, Disseminated against the
company. He held, il any one had dis
criminated against it, it was mortgages
and private property owners, who we're
assessed upen the value of their mort
cages. while mortgages of railroad prop
erty were not cnlled upon to pay tsxes
upon their mortgages. With regard
to the Fourteenth Amendment,
he held that strict construction would
not make it extend to the collector Of
taxation. The result Of a contrary coA-
struction would be that all jurisdiction
would be taken from the state, The
power of appor;ioning taxes is legisla-
tive power with which Congress has o
right TO interfere. He held further that
the amendment did not apply 60 the
protection Of railroad companies as cor
porstions, state legislatures reserving the
power to make lava in regard to c0rpo-
rations. He quoted at length from law
books in support of the theory of the
power Of taxation being vested in the
state, subject 20 no review By congress
sional action.
Senator Edmunds followed o. behalf
of the company. His argument was in
line with that made yesterday by Ex-
Senator ConkliDg. He said to argue
that the intent Of the amendment
was only to apply to the protection OF
freedmen, was equivalent TO arguing that
the provisions Of magma charta should
apply Only to the barons who forced the
King of England to sign il. Every word
CT the amendment had been weighed
carefully. We have undergone thorough
scrutiny, and every word must be con-
strued to mean all On its face: It seemed
it could not be extended to include pro-
lection from unjust and discriminating
taxation. The Constitution had no
power to control taxation in states. Five
tenths of the great revolutions had grown
out Of the imposition Of taxes deemed IN
just By the people, and to say that
amendment, framed to protect sll per-
IONS in their prop. rty, did not extend to
protection from unjust taxation was sb.
surd. States could not discriminate
against person in taxation lave, or any
other laws, aud when atste undertook
to say that q man who owned a farm in
! contiguous counties or corporation
oRniHg q water power in contiguous
counties. should pay more taxes on theil
property than persons or corporations
owning property in single county, i
was in direct conflict with the constitution
of Cali sornia, which had provision de
clarinR equal protection to al persons II
their property. A taxation law discrim.
mating against corporation owing prop
erty in two or more contiguous countie
would be unconstitutional, yet the argu
ment of counsel on the other side wa
equivalent to such proposition.
Mr.. SsndersOn, of counsel for tn
Southern Pacific Company, followed
Judge Edmunds.