Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-08-03

OF the property Of individuals, may depend
upon the construction given to the -Four
teenth Amendment, and the determination
whether it applies to artificial bodies as wei
as to natural persons. The right OF the com
pany to reduction in the estimate of the
value OF Its property assessed for taxation by
TIE amount OF the mortgage thereon, wop'c
De defeated by the construction of that amend
ment for which the plaintiff insists. and
mieht be sustained by the construction fe,
which 1t contends. It's case for relief. ac
coroing to the decisions mentioned, therefore
arises under the Constitution of the United
States.
WHETHER THE FOURTEENTH ANENDNFNy
Applies TO corporations az we'll as tn natpr.,
persons, is QUESTION which cannot be de-
termiued on this motion. It will come mr.
for determination upon the trial of the action
in the consideration of the merits of the corr.
pauy's defense. Lit is enough to maintain chs
jurisdiction of this Court according to The de-,
cisions mentioned, that the defense necss.
sariiy involves a construction of cIause al
the Federal Constitution.
IL may not, however, be cut OF place &c
mako some suggestions as 90 the force OF The
Fourteenth Amendment in order to draw the
attention of the counsel to the dificultie. IL
its application in the present case, and which
they must be prepared to meet on the trial
That amendment was undoubtedly adopted
for the principal purpose CT securing freedom
to the newly-made citizens OF the African
race, and
TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATING
State legislation against their rights as free.
mep. The generality OF the language used
necessarily extends its provisions TO ell per-
scps OF every race and color. Previously to
its adoption the Civil Rights Act had been
passed, which declared that citizens Of the
United States OF every RAGS and color, with
out regard to any previous condition of
slavery, or Involuntary seryitui lie, except as a
punishment Tor crime, should have che same
right in every State and Territory 20 make
and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties and
give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease,
sell. own and convey real and personal prop
erty, and to full and equal benefit of all laws
and proceedings for the security of person
and property, as is enjoyed by white. citi.
zens; and should be subject to like punish
ments, pains and penalties, and TO none other.
THE VALIDITY OF THIS ACT
Was questioned in many quarters: and com.
plsints were also made that, notwithstapdipg
the abolition of slavery and involuntary SCI.
vitude, the freedmen were in some quarters
OF the country subjected to disabilities, from,
which others were exempt. There were also
complaints OF the existence in certain sec
tions in the Southern States OF feeling of
enmity, growing out of the collisions of the
war, towards either of the North. Whether
these complaints had any just foundation is
immaterial. They were believed BIZ many to
be well founded, and to prevent any possible
hostile legislation TO any class from the causes
mentioned. and to obvAte objections to Iecis.
lation similar to that embodied in the Civil
Rights Act. the Fourteenth Amendment was
adopted. This is manifest from the discus
sions in Congress with reference to it. There
was no diversity of opinion as to its object
between those who favored and those who
opposed its adoption.
THE CONCLUDING CLAUSE
OF its first section was designed to cover all
cases OF possible discriminating and partial
legislation against any class in ordaining
that no State deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Equality OF protection is thus made the con-
stitutioual right Of every person. And this
equality CT protection implies not only that
the same legal remedies shall be afforded to
him for the prevention or redress of wrongs
and the enforcement of'rights, but also that
he shall be subject to no greater burdens or
charges than such as are equally imposed
upon all Others under like circumstances. No
one car, therefore, be arbitrarily taxed upon
his property at different rate from that i'm
pc ed upon simiisr property Of others, SINH
larry situated, and thus made to bear an IN.
equal share Of the public burdens. Property
may indeed be CLASSIFIED, and different kinds
be subjected to different rates.
REAL PROPERTY MAY BE TAXED AT ONE RATE
And personal property at another. Property
in particular places may be taxed for local
purposes, whilst property situated elsewhere
is exempt. License taxes may also vary in
amount, according to the calling or business
for which they are exacted. But arbitrary
distinctions not arising from real differences
in the character or situation of the property,
or which do not operate alike upon all prop
city of the same kind similarly situated, are
forbidden by the amendment. Equality il
the imposition of burdens is the constitutional
rule as applied to the property of individuals,
where it is subject to taxation at all and
this imports that an uniform mode shall be
followed in the estimation of its value.
and that the contribution exacSed shall
be in some uniform proportion to
such values prescribed, according to the
nature or position of the property. All State
actions, constitutional or legislative, imping-
ing upon the enforcement of this rule, must
give way before it. Congress, in its legisla.
ton since the adoption of the amendment,
has recognized this to be the rule. The
was adopted in 1868, and in 1870
Congress re-snscted tine Civil Rights Act.
and to the clause thstsall persons within the
jurisdiction of the United States should en-.
joy the same rights as white citizens, and be
subject to only like punishment, pains and
penalties, it added and be only subject also to
like takes. licenses and exacsions of every
kind, and to no other r. S +, Sec. 1877
LOOKING AT THIS ORIGINAL OBJECT
OF the amendment, il must be admitted that
it was primarily intelieed for the protection
of the rights of natura persons its language
is mainly applicable to them. If it incluae
also artificial person. AS corporations, when
ever its language il susceptible of application
to them, it mast be because the artificial en-
tity is composed ofenatural persons whose
rights are protected in those of the corpora
ton. 1t may be that the claim which binds
the individuals into a single artificial body
does ret keep ti1em in their united
form from the protection Of the amend.
ment. Corporations are not citizsns-the
term applies only to natural persops-and
yet they are treated as eitizeus within the
clause OF the Constitution which defines the
Judicial power Of the United States, and de.
clares that it shall ksxtend to controversies
between citizens of different States. "That
name, indeed" (of the corporatior), ssys
Chief Justice Marshall, cannot be an alien
or a citizen, but the persons whom it repre-
sents may be the ons or the other, aud the
controversy is, in fact and ia law, between
those persons suing
IN THEIR CORPORATE CHARACTER,
By their corporate name, fer corporate
right, aud the individual against whom the
suit may be instituted. Substantially and
essentially the parties in such a case, where
the members of the corporations are aliens
or citizens of different State from the op-
posing party, come within the spiris and
terms of the jurisdiction conferred by the
Constitution On the national tribunals Such
has been the universal understanding on the
subject" Bank of the United States vs..
Deyesux, Cranch, 81, See also the cases
citei in the option of the Chief Justice.l
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution
cohtsips prohibition upon the Government
Of the United States similar to the one in the
Fourteenth Amendment against the action
of the States, declaring that no. person shall
be deprived of life. liberty or property with
out
DUE PROCESS OF Law;
And yet 1t has been assumed, if not expressly
held, that the provision protects the property
of corporations against confscation equally
with that of individuals.
As will be thus seen, the question which
will be presented for chr determination Oh
the trial of this case is one of the greatest
importance. We express no opinion upon it,
but invite for it the most thoughtful consid-
Grafton of COUNSEL. Ard in their discussions
the control Of the State over corporations OF
it's creation, where reserved power of amend
meat is embodied in their charters, or imposed
by the Constitution, should be considered. The
general tendency Of modern decisions is to
treat corporations with this reserved power,
as subject at all times 70 the will Of the State
as 70 their rights, powers and liabilities.
Such unlimited control, asserted in some
cases, would, indeed, lift them Lot only out
of the protection Of the Fourteenth Amend
ulent, but also out Of nearly all protection,
except such as the legislative pleasure of the
hour may permit.
The motion to remand is denied.
FIELD, Circuit Justice.
SAWYER. Circuit Judge.
THE SPIDER WEB.
Who hirt n fairy