National Republican., 1882-12-21

pcrmost in public thought Uncle Tom,
Cabin had long been wept over; four million
icttcrs had fallen. The slaves had made O
majestic exhibition of temperance and moder
alton by abstaining from violence and ven
geance when tho homes of their masters were
left unguardcd by owners who had gone tC
the camp and to the field. Black men ON un-
numbered fields of battle had proved that
before man made them citizens, great nature
had made them mcn." All this is true. II
is also true that the term carpet bagger y
had been coined, and n thousand pens had
already begun to write "Thc Fools Errand.
Men who first went to the south carrying
knapsacks, when the struggle ended went
again to engage in the rivalries of peace
From half of the hamlots in the north the
restless foot of adventure had gone out to the
southern states, and met everywhere with
resentment and suspicion, and often
with overt hostility. Objections to the
presence of new comers from the
north was formulated in the creed of a
great party, and received bloody baptism
in leagues and lodges and klans. This was
known, not only to the kinsiolk and tho
neighbors of the vicinage, but to the repre-.
sentatives and the senators in congress. In
Lord George Gordon's case the court said the
cry of the mob was admissible in evidence as
part of the res geste, aud the battle-cry of q
party against those denounced as carpet-bag-
gers and intrudcrS-a cry with which the land
resounded-was, and is, part of the res gestR
Of the fourteenth amendment.
Referring to Chief Justice Marshall in the
Dartmouth college case, Mr.. Conkling read a
strong statement that, even if the trainers ol
the constitution did not intend to defer to OF
include a given case, it must, nevertheless
| fall within the constitution if the Language
covered it.
He added: "a poet and philosopher fond
of parallels has said:
1.-THE hand that rounded Peters dome,
And groined the aGles of Christian Rome,
Wrought i'll n sad sincerity.
He builded better than he Knew"
I Themenwho proposed the fourteenth amend
ment wrought in some sincerity; ii may be they
| builded better than they knew. If it be true
| that needs have arisen of which they never
dreamed; if it be true that wrongs have
arisen, or shall arise, which they never ap.
| pretended and which shall be cured by the
words they established, then all the more will
| those words be sanctifed and consecrated to
humanity aid progress.
| Mr.. Conkling next argued that the proceed
| ing by which the defendant was assessed and
| taxed was
NOT "DUE PROCESS OF LAW"
Reciting the various Determinations tc
which his client was subjected, he said
| Such unjust and discriminating requirements
]
what state instrumentality they are inflicted
whether by one of the departments of its gov.
ernment or another, or by all, or by the
organic law of the state the fourteenth
amendment of the constitution of the United
States acts upon them, and prohibits them.
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.
| Applying the test of the fourteenth amend.
ment Mr.. Conllling said: equal protection
of the laws" is denied by an ordinance which
provides that taxpayers in general shall be
| taxed on the cash value of their property, less
the amount of membranes upon it, and that
certain selected taxpayers shall be taxed on
the actual value of all their property, without
deduction for membranes.
If the discrimination be not founded on the
nature of the property, nor on the use made
of the property, and be not confined to speci-
fled kinds of property, irrespective of its own
ership, or applicable to all property of the
same kind, then the distinction is founded on
ownership, and is leveled at particular owners.
This is unjust taxation, and utterly de-
structive of the fundamental principle on
which all rightful taxation rests.
He made u very elaborate and exhaustive
argument to demonstrate that the discrimina-
tion complained of could in no sense be con-
sidered classification of property for the
purpose of taxation. He showed that the
property of whatsoever nature, belonging to
the defendants and others of the same class
had been
SUBJECTED TO DIFFERENT RULE
from that applied to others. On this head he
said 1t is manifest that no class or species of
property, and no property distinguished by
its use or locality, has been selected from the
mass of taxable property, and subjected to q
special rule; but the property Of certain
owners, because of its ownership, has been
withdrawn from the rule applicable to just
such property, and exposed to ex parte as
sessment ut an invidious rate.
What becomes of the maxim often found in
the judgments of the court, that assessments
and taxation must be uniform and equal at
least as regards subjects of the same class?
STATE INTERFERENCE WITH A FEDERAL
AGENT.
Mr.. Conklings final point was that the state
of California had attempted to include in the
railway property to be taxed the franchise
derived in part at least from the United
States. He maintained that the corporation
had by act of congress, and with the consent
of California to all the acts of congress past
or future bearing upon it, been made q means
and instrumentality of the general govern
ment in executing governmental powers, and
its existence and operations have been sub
,iected in perpetuity to federal jurisdiction
and control.
In view of all this the taxation proposed by
California is not within the power of state
A tax on freights or passengers coming from
without the state, or destined to points beyond
state, would be annulled under the constitu-
ton of the United States irrespective Of the
origin or character of the corporation.
This branch of the case was argued at great
length, and many authorities cited to sustain
the defendants claim to be dealt with, as to
its franchise, as an instrumentality Of the
general government.
/The remarks of Mr.. Conkling occupied about
I two hours and half. We have given but
such portions as seemed to be of the highest
interest, regrettipg that space cannot be spared
for the whole.
Hon. A. Il. Hart.
Ex-senator Conkling was followed by Mr..
A. l.. Hart, the attorney general of California,
who argued in behalf of the state and Of the
county of San Mateo, that the effect of the
proceedings of the state board of equalization
of California in tho levy of the assessment
sued upon was not to deprive the railway COM
pauy of its property without "due process OF
law" within the meaning of those terms as
used in the fourteenth amendment to the con-
stitution of the United States. Before he had
concluded his argument the court adjourned.
--S-
Nominations.
The President sent the following nomina-
tions to the senate yesterday:
ostmasters-Charles NJ. Dinsmore at Clinton
Mass; Lewis L. Gleason, Reading, Mass; Cyrus
Knox, jr,, Palmer, Mass.i Frederick Z; Fowle Ar: