Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-04-03

have quoted at length, was decided by the
Court of Appeals of the State OF New York,
but it is authority in this State, having been
approved by the Supreme Court of Califor-
nia in the case of Mulligsn VS.. Smith, lately
decided.
Nor shall any State deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection Of
tie laws" This, too, is the declaration of
the Fourteenth Amendment. This amend
ment Is
THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND,
Anything in the Constitution or laws of any
State to the contrary notwithstanding. Ia
constituting Constitutions we are not confined
to narrow or technical rules of law. The
greatest constitutional lawyers of this coun.
try have been those who, possessing but mod
crate knowledge Of the technical learning of
the law. hsve brought to the consid-
Grafton of the subject thorough knowledge
of the object and purposes of rightful govern.
ments, and who, with broad and enlis shtened
minds. have applied strong common-sense
rules ip the Interpretation of fundamental
laws.
THE PEOPLE ABLE To GRASP THE SUBJECT
The American people, by reason OF their
participation in the affairs of Government,
are able to grssp and comprehend a constitu
tiopal question. 1t has not been uufro quentiy
the case that the educated masses arrive Of s.
correct solution Of such questions in advance
Of the mass Of the legal profession. Notably
80 was this the case upon the greatest consti-
tutional question ever raised-Damely, of the
relations of the Federal and State Govern.
ments to each other and of the relation of the
people of the Union to each. Upon these
questions lawyers and Judges differed from
the beginhing, and after years of discussion
wers as far apart as ever. Yet the people
seized upon these questions in the supreme
moment and determined them with such ac-
curacy that now no one questions the justice
and wisdom of that determination. Hence
it is that such questions may always be sd-
dressed with prcpristy to the people, and
hence it is that the railroad company may
securely rest upon its proper action in law
fully resisting
A VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
Hence it is that it may in confidence look be.
yond the misrepresentation and misappre-
tensions of the hour to the time when the
eound and just judgment of the people will
approve and vindicate its action.
l think you may be assured that there is
not an intelligent citizen of your county but
who, upon reflection, will say, 1.-THE railroad
company has within that county been denied
the equal protection of the law" Under the
laws the property of every person in that
county found protection against any unjust
action of the Assessor in an appeal to the To-
cal Board of Equalization. This protection
was denied to the railroad company. The
railroad property, under the special System
established, is taxed to support the county
government. but is dsnied the protection Of
that government.
SUPPOSE THE CASE YOUR OWN.
To illustrate and to bring it home to you
and to your people Lat US suppose the Con.
stitution had established, as it has, a general
system of taxation, and then had provided
that every tract of land within the county of
Colusa should be assessed, not under the gen.
eral system, but by State Board, the mem
bers of which Board were elected for four
years, and from distant parts of the State
that such assessment might be made without
aotice-without regard to any rules of pro
cedure or evidence, and under no law, save
the will and pleasure of the Board that from
such assessment there should be no appeal,
Suppose this csse-apply it to yourself-and
then you have the case of the railroad
company. Let me ask, if the supposed case
existed, whether there is single man in your
county who would willingly submit to such
system? l do not think so. and will go
further and say if he cid he would be un.
worthy TO be a citizen of this country.
THE CLAIM OF THE RAILROAD COMPANY
Here presented may be put in q single SEN
tsnce: 1t claims the right, when its property
is assessed for county purposes, to receive the
benefit and protection which the county gov
ernment affords to every other person within
its limits. II claims the right to have its
property valued for the purposes of taxation,
under the same rules Of whence and by the
same modes Of procedure which are applied
to the valuation of other property. OF the
Fourteenth Amendment says Judge Field,
in the Virginia jury casss, ct assures TO
every one the same rules Of evidence and
modes OF procedure"
Commenting upon this decision. ard upon
the case Of the People Va Weaver 10 Otto, p.
539), Mr.. John Norton Pomeroy, Professor Of
Law in the Hastings Law Department Of the
University of California, aud one OF the most
learned msn in his profession says: upon
the same principle State law sanctioniEg
the imposition of unequal burdens must fail
before the constitutional amendment"
NO SNAP JUDGMEYT-A FULL EXPLANATION.
Now, Mr. Editor, before concluding. [
wish to refer to an article appearing in the
local columns Of your paper, headed "Snap
Judgment" In it l think you entirely mis-
apprehend the facts. For more than one
year last past the railroad company has been
trying to get this matter before the Courts of
q
it commenced proceedings in the United
States Court; an objection was taken to the
form OF the action by the parties representing
the people. That objection was sustained.
In every proceeding had since, the attorneys
representing the people have refused to meet
the case upon its merits, but have objected to
the form of the action.
When the time came that the proper'y
might be sold by the Tax Collectors, proceeC-
Zoo, ,4aI, {
San Francisco against the Tax Collector of
each county, to enjoin the sale. But in each
case, as you viii see By the complaint on file
IN your Superior Court, it was averred that
the piEintitf in those actions, '.while then
and now denying all liability upon said pre-
tended assessment, and claiming that all the
proceedings had in relation thereto were
IN VIOLATION OF LAW AND THE RIGHTS OF
THIS PLAINTIFF,
Did tender and offer to the said defendant
the Tax Collector-the SUN Of (this blank in
each case was filed by an amount equal to 60
per cent. J, in United States gold coin, in pay
ment of the taxes which would be due upon
said property if it had been assessed ia the
manner provided by law (that is, by the gen.
eral law), and that the said plaintiff then was
and ever since has been and still is ready and
willing to pay the same That the amount
30 rendered was and is ia EXCESS of the full
amount Of said State, county, township and
district taxes which would be due upon said
property if il had been assessed as provided
by law, and is and was ia every respect in
excess of the full amount which the defend
ant in that event would have baen entitled to
receive for such taxes, and plaintiff now
briggs the said sum of (ststirg the amount ia
each case in accordance with the facts. aud in
your county for the year 1881 at s., 152 72)
into Court and Oilers the same TO defendant,
and il refused by defendant, subj acts the said
sum to such orders or judgments as the Court
may make in the premises"
MONEY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED.
Now / submit to you, and to ali candid
men, If it would not have been the rightful
policy of the parties representing the State
to accept this money, have the Court make
an order-which Judge Waynire will tell
you he was ready to make, and to which we
had no ohjections-that plaintiff pay this
sum into the county treasures, and then to
have met the case as to the balance upon its
merits, and have the question determined
free from all embarrassment as to the sum
already paid. For some reason, which 1
have never been eble to comprehend, the at
torneys representing the State refused to act
upon this order, bat moved to dissolve the
injunctions, taking objection 60 toe form of
action, which objection Judge Waymire sus-
Al A,l t,k, ,,a-