Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-12-20
CITY AND DISTRICT.
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
An Interesting Case i'm tho United
States Supreme Court
EX-SENATOR coSKIING AND SENATOR EDAuNDs
AS COUNSEL.

The United States Supreme Court was more
attractive to visitors to the Capitol yesterday
Shan either House of Congress. An important
railroad case was set for argument. The case
Itself Is one of unusual interest, as Ii involves
a construction of the fourteenth amendment to
the Constitution. The Central Pacific railway
company of California alleges that a different
rule OF assessment is applied to its property from
that by which other property is assessed, and
that this Is q violation of the equality rights
guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment. But
it was not the case so much as the counsel which
crowded the Supreme Court chamber Yesterday.
Ex-senator COnkling and Senator Edmunds
appeared as counsel for the railway companv
and ex-Secretary Eyarts was present arguing a
different case. There was good deal of
curiosity manifested to see Mr. Conkling and
hear him speak. During the argument of Mr.
Eyarts. whose case preceded that of the railway
company. Mr.. COnkling sat at the extreme right
Cacing the COURT of the tables arranged for
Counsel He was buSily engaged i'm examining
briefs nd making notes using Quill pen He
never looked up once nor did he seem to be
aware of the presence of others or that an argu-
ment was being delivered. He was working
earnestly, diligently. He looked much as he did
when Senator. though he had more ofthe ap-
pearance of lawyer than formerly. He looked
TO be a little more f1eshy than when I'm the
Senate. Though he is to speak upon a case of
iaw, naturally dry one to the general listener
there was an eager desire to hear him. many
hoping, no doubt, that there might be some
thing in the case to bring out some of the flights
of eloquence which used to mark the Senator's
speeches. He did not speak yesterday how
ever. eX-Chief Justice A. L. Rhodes taking I'D
the day in an argument in behalf of the county
OF San MateO and the State OF California who
are plaintiffs in error
tOMETHING ABOUT THE POINTS INVOLVED
The principal questions involved in this litiga-
tion are: Whether the fourteenth amendment
to the federal Constitution has any proper ap-
piicatiOn to the revenue systems of the several
states; whether, by that amendment, limita-
ton is imposed upon the taxing powers Of the
states, and, if so, what is the nature and extent
OF that limitation. A number of subordinate
questions are raised, among them whether pri-
yate corporations are "persons" within the
meaning Of the fourteenth amendment; whether
that amendment, in declaring that no state
shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws" is to be
understood as forbdding unequal taxation, and
whether under the reserved power to amend
alter, or repeal the laws under which private
cOrpO ratiOnS are formed, the state can exercise
any control over the property of q corporation
except such as may be exercised through con-
troll over its franchise, and over like property of
natural persons engaged in similar business.
The suit in which these questions arise was
originally brought in one of the superior courts
of California to recover from the Southern Pa
cific railway company certain state and county
taxes levied on its property for the fiscal year
lSol-2- The company, besides a general de-
NAL OF the allegations of the complainant set
up as a special answer to the action that in
the assessment of its property according to
which the taxes In suit were levied an un-
lawful and unjust discrimination was made
between its property and the property of in
dyduals. In that it not allowed any de-
ductiOn from the valuation of its property on
account of the mortgage thereon, while such de-
ductiOn was allowed for mortgages in the as
sessment of property of individuals; that the
company was thus compelled to bear an unequal
share of the public burdens and that as this
discrimination was made in pursuance of pro-
visions Of the constitution of the state the
company was denied the equal protection of
the law" guaranteed by the fourteenth amend
ment OF the federal Constitution. 1t was fur
Their alleged by the railway company that the
assessment of its property was illegal and void
because made In pursuance of the provisions of
the state constitution, which allowed no notice
to the defendant. and afforded it no opportunity
10 be heard respecting the value of its property
OF for the correction of any errors Of the state
board of equalization, thus depriving 1t of its
property without the due process Of law guar
Anteed by the said fourteenth amendment