Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-04-14
TIE RAILROAD TAX CASES.
The Principal Points the Attorneys Made
on the Argument to Set Aside the Com
promise

on the Argument to Set Aside the com
promise.
Reference was yesterday made to the tact
that the railroad tax cases had been argued
before Superior Judge benson. The county
of Sacramento sued the four railroads having
lines in this county for delinquent taxes for
1881 and 1882. The complaints were filed by
order of the Board of Supervisors by District
Attorney H. L. Buckley. Subsequently the
attorney for the companies filed an oher 20
allow Judgment to be taken in the cases tor
sum equal to about 60 per cent. OF the sum
claimed to be due on the delinquency. The
District Attorney went before the Board OF
Supervisors and ssked what he should do IN
the matter. The Board asked for his advice,
and he told it he believed the Board had
mower. uuder the statute authorizing party
| to settle a suit which it had commenced, to
| accept the offer. AS to the policy OF doing so
he refused to advise the Board at all, as he
was not bound to indicate the financial policy
of the county. At that moment Deputy At
! torney- General White appeared and pro-
tasted against the Board accepting the offer,
as part of the delinquency sued for was taxes
Que the State, and as to that at least the
| Board. he held, had no right to compromise
for less than the full amount, and tor that
amount the State would hold the county re
sponsible. He also advised the Board tha ~, II
| had not the power to compromise at all. The
| District Attorney renewed his advice and
again told the Board that it had the control
| of the suit, and as such plaintiff it could &C.
cept any Judgment it choose. The Board
thereupon voted to accept the offer to allow
Judgment to be entered, and ordered the DIS
trict Attorney to have it entered accordineiy.
| This action was based on the ground that it
| was an act of financial wisdom and sound
policy in county administration, and tnat the
sum to be received was more than the Board
had originally and in former years adJudged
as Just for the roads to pay as taxes; that the
assessed valuation of the road beds, right OF
way and rolling stock, as made by the State
Board of Equalization, was excessive and
unjust. and that to collect what was offered
to be paid was to receive fair and proper
sum: and that as the matter was In litigation
the county might not get to the end of its
lawsuits for years, and might even then be
defeated. and meanwhile have to pay out
money on the suits and interest on warrants
that could not be paid until the county re-
ceiyed its money due for taxes. These were
the views expressed by the majority of the
Board as moving it to its act. The same day
the attorney for the railroads was informed of
the acceptance of the offer, and the judgments
being entered, next day the companies paid in to
the District Attorney the money, and he en-.
tered satisfaction of the judgments. On that
dav, prior to the satisfaction being entered
the Deputy Attorney. General, On oral motion,
procured an order of Court, directed to TIE
clerk, commanding him to stay all further pro-
ceedings in the case until the further order
of the Court. This order was not served on
Mr.. Buckley, but as he was entering the
satisfaction, he was told there was such an
order; but he did not consider his acknowl-
edgment of satisfaction as proceeding"
and he SO made reply on being arraigned to
discharged him. as it appeared he had no in
tention to disobey any order of Court. In
the meantime, and on the day Of the entry of
satisfaction, but after it, and after the pay
ment of the money, the Attorney General,
A. L. Hart, served on the District Attorney
notice that he assumed control of the cases,
and notifying him not to further proceed in
the cases. The next step was motion
made to the Court to set aside the
entry of satisfaction, such motion being
made by the Attorney General, and based on
affidavits filed, setting out what he claimed
to be the facts. These were replied to by the
the attorneys for the defendants in the cases,
in affidavits, recitng their history of the case.
The material issue between the affidavits was
| only as to whether the satisfaction was en-.
tered after the order of Court, and as to
! whether steps were taken by the District
Attorney after notice Of the Attorney Gan.
eral of his assumption of authority in the
cases. These issues, however, were not de-
bated on the hearing of the motion, and the
true facts are as set forth herein. as shown by
the record, and the statements Of parties con-
cerned, and the reporters note book. Tues
day evening the motion came on for argu-
ment.
Attorney General Hart made, in the course
of two hours argument and over these
points, which constitute the basis Of his po-
sition:
1. The Attorney General has, under the
statute, supervisory power over the District
Attorneys in the State, and has the right
to interfere in this case as a consequence.
The State is interested in the cases, and as
its chief law officer he had therefore the
right to appear. he read the statutory pro-
visions bearing on the subject.
2. The Constitution vests in the State
Board of Equalization sole power, without
| appeal or review, to assess railroads, as to
| certain of their property, that run through or
into two or more counties.
8. This being so, no power exists, direct or
| indirect, to change such assessment other
systems being provided for by law, but this
system Of assessment being provided for by
the organic Act.
4. The Supreme Court, in the Wells Fargo
case. held that the State Beard has the power
| to make such assessment, and that there ex-
lists no authority to gainsay it. Thus the
| State Board is recognized as distinct branch
| of our constitutional pOyeTnment
D. The compromise in these cases was an
| indirect way of undoing the act OF the State
| Board. II became an assessing power in
| itself, and that does not reside in the Board
of Supervisors. If the Supervisors can re-
| duce 40 per cent, they can 80 per cent, or
| the whole amount.
| 6 One who applies for the abatement Of a
tax must apply to the constitutional author
ity having the power to abate.
Z. Final power in this matter must reside
| somewhere, and the people have seen fit to
repose it in the State Board of Equaliza.
ton AS to the integrity of that body, or the
| Justice or fairness of its acts. the Attorney.
| General has nothing to do. He must do his
utmost TO enforce the law, and believing it tc
be his duty in this case, be will do go.
| s. The Constitution tSection 10, Article
| XI. provides that there shall be no reduc
! ton or Communication in any form whatever OF
! any tax. Ihat pronlDltS utterly any abate
ment of this tax and stands directly in the
| face of this compromise.
| 9. To uphold this compromise is to destroy
| the uniformity of the system of taxation anC
! increase the tax burdens of one part of the
| people.
10. 1t is the duty of the Court, when in
| formed-no matter whether by the Attorney
/ General or some other person-that the iudg
ments herein are illegal and unconstitutional
to set them aside and rebuke the usurpatior
| Of the Board of Supervisors.
IL. The power Of the District Attorney il
| a limited one, and he has no power to com
promise tax suits. Tax suits are not of tht
| class that can be compromised by acceptance
of offer to allow judgment.
Judge T. B. Mcfarland, for the judgment
| debtors-the four railroad companies-replieC
to Mr.. Hart, and made these points
l. There is no constitutional question be
fore the Court. 1t is simply question o
practice. 1t is not question as to whethe
District Attorney Buckley has overthrow
the Constitution, or as to who shall recon
struct its shattered columns.
2. Sacramento county brought eight action
to recover money for taxes of four railroad
companies. The defendants being in Cour
thereby, under the statute providing for It
fled an offer to allow judgment for giver
sum to be entered up. The attorney for plain
tiff filed an acceptance, and the Judgment
! .,ara ankarad Tho m0nay WAS the mex