National Republican., 1882-12-22
EQUAL RIGHTS.
Conclusion Of the Argument in the Great Cali
fornia Tax Case.
Judge Edmunds Discusses the Scope Of
the Fourteenth Amendment.
II was New Magma Charta-An Absolute Aairma-
ton Of Equality 10 ALI.
The Points Made by Counsel for the Plain.
tifs In Error.

The argument OF Une grCaU runway ldh cuSe
was continued in the supreme court on yester-
day. Hon. A. S. Hart, attorney general of
California, concluded his argument in behalf
of the county of San Mateo, maintaining the
propositions that the term due process of
law" as used in the fourteenth amendment,
when applied to the taxing power of the states,
means simply those summary methods for the
collection of taxes which, from time immemo-
rial, have been rcsorted to by all govern
ments that section of article 13 of the con-
stitution of California does not, in the sense
of the fourteenth amendment deny to the
Southern Pacific railway company an equal
protection Of the law; that under the consti-
tuition of California corporations are subject
to the absolute and unrestrained control of the
legislature, and this control involves an un-
limited exercise of the taxing power, and
that the word ,"person" in the fourteenth
amendment does not embrace corporations.
Mr.. Hart was followed by
SENATOR EDMUNDs,
who discussed briefly the constitutional ques-
tions involved in the case. He said:
l.
The language of that part of the four
teenth amendment of the constitution bear
ing on this case is: Nor shall any state de-
prive any person of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal pro-
lection of the laws" This, / submit, secures
due process of law and equality of rights to
white persons as between themselves and the
state, as we'll as between colored persons and
the state neither race nor color plays any
part in the scheme or application of the amend
ment, although race and color were leading
mot the sole) cause of its adoption.
1t would have been, under such circum-
'tances, a qualification as well as a self-con-
tradiction to provide that persons Of one race
should be afforded sucurities that were not
given in the same way and to the same ex-
tent to persons of another. The amendment
was new magma charter that was in fact, in
FORM and in effect a fundamental security to
avery person in the state in respect of every
private right that could be invaded, and an
absolute affirmation of equality of civil rights
to all persons before the law.
The first clause of the paragraph cited for
bids the state to touch life, liberty, or prop
erty without due process of law and the
second forbids that even with due process of
law any person shall be denied equal protec-
ton under the laws.
This is the plain letter of the amendment.
1t is its intrinsic and beneficent spirit, and it
was its purpose. The chief, immediate oc-
casion was the danger of colored citizens, but
there were many white men then exposed to
the same practical danger; and had this not
been so, the one grievance to one man or class
is always the natural and proper ground for
general securities that apply to all. Had the
intention been to limit the securityto colored
persons, one word would have done so.
If it had been intended for colored equality
alone, WAS it colored equality as between per-
sons of color and whites, or between persons
of color only? Were the c6lored to be left
free to oppress the whites? Could it have
been intended that a white person should
have a security against injustice by state
governed by colored persons that he could not
have against state governed by whites?
1t is impossible to conceive that congress
and the states could have been induced to
put into the national constitution provision
that colored persons should have due process
of law and equal rights, as against the tyranny
of whites, that the whites could not have
against simihr tyranny of the blacks, or
against similar tyranny of state governed
by whites. 1t is historical, public fact, that
in some states the colored persons were, and
are still, in a majority.
But if there be security reciprocal as be-
tween color and race both ways, can it be
imagined that so great an act as constitu-
tional amendment rested the fundamental
civil rights of citizens or persons upon the cir
cumstanee of race, or color, and not upon the
intrinsic rights of man without regard to any
circumstance? Could religion, or sex, or call
ing, or birth have been intended to be ex-
cepted by mere supposed historic inference?
A national charter of personal liberty and
security cannot be safely limited in such a
way; and no such instance in free govern
ments is known in human experience.
maintain, then, that this constitutional
inhibition is universal as it respects persons.
IL.
Why, then, is it as regards the things pro-
aibited?
1t is prohibited to deprive a person las ap-
pied to cases like this) of property without
due process of law. The state of California by
its officers has attempted to take the property
of the defendant under color of a tax, with
out any notice and without any opportunity
to be heard and without any hearing. The
constitution of California declares that the
state board of equalization Ia phrase of de-
scription merely, i'll respect of the matter in
question:, shall assess railway property ac-
cording to its notion of value without provid-
ing for any notice of hearing whatever, from
beginning to end, (article 13, section l0), al
though every other person was by the consti-
tuition entitled to notice, (articlc 13 section ~.
The supreme court of California holds that
this provision Is self-eXecuting and needs no
legislation to carry it out, and, it is insisted,
none has been had.
! admit that there may be due process of
law without the use of strictly judicial courts,
rs i'm the cases of personal service due to II
state taxes &C.; but deny that in any case
person can be lawfully deprived of liberty
or property under the name of taxation, or
otherwise, without notice of the action of the
state officials and a right to be heard before
the right to deprive him Of liberty or property
has become fixed and is to be executed. Tax
alton, it is true, is an essential element of
sovereignty; so is the administration of JUS
tice; and so is the taking of private property
for public use; and SO are many other
things that II government may do; but no
more in one case than in another can it trans
gress the fundamental rule of right, equality
and order that the source of governmental
power has established.
In respect of equality of rights and protec-
tion, the language is, "Nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
Versal as the English language can furnish.
They do not appear susceptible of the refine
ments of casuistry, and II is not possible, con-
sistently with notions of free government TO
limit their scope either by considerations of
policy or differences drawn from some special
grievance that led to their adoption.
To deny is not only to refuse when sought,
but ii is to omit TO extend TOTO fail from any
cause to do equal justice and to secure equality
of burdens, In its great legal and catholic
sense it commands that there shall not be
given TO some what is denied to others, of
those rights and equalities which under SINH
lar inherent conditions belong to all alike.
THE senator here quoted from magma
charta)
Null psndemtp, null aegdbimus ant di6eremus
rectlml rel juSiitiom. This has always meant
that every man shall have equal justice done
to him in every case in which 1t is called for.
The prohibition of denial creates the ailirmu-
tive uufV tn UiVa apuo1ft,v nf nrntnptinu uuIats