Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-09-27

pIJLCS1iDh vi thC -G"os luc SOuEb
holds that this plea is good, and that the
provisions for assessing corporations in
| serted in the Constitution are in viola
! ton of the Fourteenth Amendment, and
consequently invalid. In accordance with
stipulations between the parties this ju6g-
ment is rendered final, and the cases 60 at
once to the Supreme Court of the United
States The argument by which the Court
supports and reinforces it's decision is very
| elaborate, and we are unable to present ii
to our readers in full at present, The sa.
| lient points, however, are capable of being
stated more briefly, and the consequences
of the decision may be pointed out.
The counsel for the People commended
that the Fourteenth Amendment was only
intended to apply to the negroes in the
South, and they also maintained that the
term "persons in the amendment did
not include corporations. The answers to
these propositions, however, were conclu.
sive, and it may be regarded as certain
that had any political consideration en-.
tered into the cases the distinguished Re.
publican lawyers who represented the PEG.
pie would have been quick to perceive that
the scope OF the amendment could not be
limited in the manner suggested by them.
1t was pointed out that ell Constitution
trainers were "liable to build better than
"they knew" but that the plain meaning
and implication of constitutional language
could not be ignored or iisregarded merely
because cases had arisen subsequent TO its
adoption which those who made it did not
f0resee. The argument for the position
that "persons does not include corpora
tons, was refuted by adducing abundant
evidence of the recognition by the Courts
that corporations are persons. In fact
their technical designation is artificial
"perso2s as distinguished from "natural
"persons." Judge Field decides that they
are unquestionably persons within She
meaning of the amendment, and that they
have been deprived of the equal protection
of the laws, by the new Constitution.
He shows the fallacy of the argument
that the mode of assessment provided in
that instrument does not constitute a
discrimination against the corporation, in
very clear way. Suppose" he save,
"a private person owns farm which is
"valued at 500, 900, and is incumbered
with mortgage amounting to $50 900.
He is in that case assessed $50, 600. If
"a railroad corporation owns an adjoining
"tract worth $780, 600, which is also en-
numbered with mortgage OF $50, 900, it
"would be assessed at 500 000 There
sis here discrimination too palpable and
"gross to be questioned, and such is the
"nature of the discrimination made
"against the Southern Pacific Railroad
" Company in the taxation of its prop.
"erty." He also demolishes the sophis-
teal defense attempted to be set up in
behalf of this flgrAns inequality of tax.
alton. He observes 1T is no answer to
" this discrimination to say that property
:" in the State may be divided into classes,
"and different rates apportioned to differ
cent classes. There is no diff.
"ferenoe il the rates provided by the
90 State laws. There is only one rate for
"all property (; and there is, therefore,
"no case presented for the application Of
"the doctrine of classification. The dis.
elimination complained Of arises from
" the different mode adopted in ascertain.
"ing the value of the property of railroad
corporations as basis for taxation, not
"from any different rate when the value
sis established. The value being ascer-
tanned, the law fixes the rate, and the
ground OF complaint here is that the
"iaw requires higher valus to be placed
"upon TIE defendaut's property than upon
:" the property of individuals similarly in
numbered" This is perfectly clear, and
there is no answer to it. There can be
no rational doubt az to the fact of the dis
elimination, and, given the discrim-
nation, it follows inevitably that the State
Contribution is in contrayention Of the
supreme law of the land.
And yet this decision ought not to be a
surprise TO the people of California. When
the new Constitution was being made, and
while it was being submitted to the pub,
lie, the RECORD UNION showed, again and
again, that the Convention had ignored the
Constitutional Amendments, and that
their hsadlong aork would assursdly no.
stand the analysis OF the Judicial depart
nept of the Government. The trash is,
however, THAI all the determinations
against railroad corporations which the new
Constitution contains (lnd every one OF
which is rs invaid rs the provisions re-
lating 80 the taxation of corpora!ioHs)
were inserted deliberately, and in fnll
knowledge OF thsir unccustitutionality.
They were the work Of demagogues who
cared nothing for the future who acted
on the principle latter US the deluse y
who favored worthless provisions with
their eyes open; and who only sought to
deceive the ignorant masses, and to Justify
the prevalent prejudices against the rail.
roads. We have frequently commented on
the woful waste of money and time In.
VOWED in the movements of such dema-
gogues, and here we have an illustration
the force of which must strike every "a.
tional being Judge Fields decision,
which in all probability foreshsdows that
OF the Supreme Court, destroys the ma
chinery by which she railrosi corporations
are taxed. Bat it does much more than
this. Ii the taxation machinery is uncon-
stitutional, so, on the came showing, is the
Railroad Commission. TIE same fragrant
discrimination, the sans denial of equal
rights, the same refusal OF due process OF
law, pervades all the provisions relating
to the latter tribunal. Every argument
which has been employed TO demonstrate
the invalidity Of the State Board of Eauali.
cation applies with equal force TO the
Railroad Commission.