New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-01-03


because they ara allowed to sue BY corporate name.
Tue name ind ed, cannot be alien citizen, bat
lne persons wnom u represents may oe the one or the
other aud the controversy IT, in fact and In law. be-
tween those persons suing In their corporate character
individual against whom the suit may be- instituted
Substantially and essentially the parties such q case
wnen the members OF the corporation Aliens cit
gems OF different State from the opposite party
within the spirit and terms OF the Jurisdiction conferred
By the Constitution on the National tribunals sucn has
been the universal understanding on the subject. Re-
peatedy has the C0urJ decided causes between corpO
ration and an individual without feeling doubt respect
ing its Jurisdiction"
The same point was presented In another form in the
case OF Marshall va. Baltimore and OHIO Railroad Com
pauy TIC How $3.50. There the question whether
CITIZEN OF could the Circuit Court OF the
United States corporation OF another State and SINH
lar conclusion reached After referring to the clause
United states 10 Controversies be ween citizens Of differ
ent States the Court proceeded to consider the oec
tons urged 10 treating corporation a. citizen so far
mght be necessary to protect the corpOrators
corporation observed Mr.. Justice Ger, speaking for
tho Court II Is said IS an artificial person, mere legal
entity invisible and intangible. This is no doubt M Ia
physically true ia ceran sense. Tne inference, also,
that sucD 9n artificial entity cannot be citizen Is
logical conclusion from the premises which cannot be
denied. Blu; cdzen who has made contract, and has
TRUTH that did not deal with mere meta phys
cal abstraction but with natural persons that ms wit
has not been served on an Imaginary entity out on men
ana citizens; and his contract was made with them
The legal representative or numerous unknown asso
ciates, secret and dormant partners"
"The necessities and cohyeniences OF trade and Dus
require that such numerous associates and stock
holoers should act by representation ana have the fac
uty OF contracting suing ana Deing sued IN ncuous
OF COlecllVe man, But Inesc Important
erred on themDy stare legislation Tor their own conven
ience cannot be welded TO deprive Ooucrs of acknow
edged rights. 1t is not reasonable that those who deal
wiJh such persons should be deprived Of valuable priv
iiegs Oy sylosisu, or Father sophism which deals
suOtly with words and names without regard to the
tDings or persons they are used to represent
PERSONS AID CORPORATIONS.
The Fifth Amendment 10 the Constitution declares that
"No person shall De heid TO answer I0r capital or
indictment Of rand jury except ia cases arising In
tue land naval forces tue militia, when in actual
HI Nlllgsf.
person subject for the offence to be twice pat In
oo,rd o, NE or limb; nor III ne bc compelled IN any
criminal case TO be witness against himself, nor be de-
prvcd OF he, liberty or property without due process OF
lw snail private property DC taken Tor pubic USE
without just compensation
From tlo nature OF The prohibitions in this amendment
il would seem "a hOu they could apply only natural
twice put ID jeopardy OF Nc or lino OF cam.
ANA. therefore, il might be said with mnca
that word person tIere used IN connection wh
tlr prohibition against the deprivation OF lfe, liberty
and property dge process Of law, Il In like man
ner limited 10 natural person. Bat such has not been
the construction of tue courts similar provision Is
found nearly al the state constitutions aud every
where at ali times, ana in all courts u nas been
d. either b. tacit assent or express adldcatlOn TO
end far their property IL concerned 10 corpora
tons. Ana this hs been because the property OF cor
alton 10 ia dcl the property OF the cprpOratOis. 10
DEPRIVE CORPORATION OF It's property, o. TO burden IT,
Is la fact to the cOrpolaoro OF their property or
TO lessen It's vaue Their tnOuSh they
ANA constituting OIiy right Gurhg Tue communicates
OF tie corporation To participate III us on
OF its assets, have an appreciate value,
md property III "a COMMERCIAL sense;
and Whatever Affects the property OF the corpora
ton necessarily affects the commercial value OF
these H. example, 10 take the iustratlOa
given Dy counsel CORPORATION creci IOr 1auAng pur-
posea land notes stocks bonds ana money, no
stockhUlder claim that lie owns any parruar item
Of this property Out he owns an interest," Which the
courts will project against uawul seizure or apyrO
pratOn by others and the usOlu ion of the company
ne Will receive pr0pOrtlOhate snare Oh te assets Now,
IL OF thc state takes the entire properly, VINO
has suffered loss by the legislation whose property has
been akcn 1t Is true tha the corporation mas oeen
deprived of its properly but 10 the same time SO have
the cOrpOratOrs In every JUST sense or 1e oOnslu-
t0ua guarantee they nave Dech ueprFsd OF the prop
erty. -,
not Apply to corporaton-, because, stated oy
lives and liberties OF tne individual corporatOrs are
not the lie ANA liberty OF the corporation.
Nor al Tie privileges ana imnlAiics Oh citizenship
attach to corporations These bOdls nave never Deen
considered citizens lot any o'her purpose tih Tue pro
lection the property rights Of the cOrporatOrs The
status OF citizenship, emitting the citizen to certain
privileges ana minuuites in the several STATES uoes lot
belong corporations The spcclai privileges when
cannot therefore, exercised In another state without
The atter's consent, ned in Paul IS Virginia Is
sumed IN tue absence OF positive prohibition
Decisions OF STATE courts, In narmony with the views
we have expressed exist great numbers But 1t Is
necessary 10 them Ii T. sufficient 10 add tat IN all
writer's IN all cOoe5 and ~ all Revised oIatdter Is
that the Term person Includes, or may include
corporations; winch amounts To what We nave already
snihtt whenever Il is necessary for the protection OF
con ruct property rights the cJur5 VIII look through
ideal entity and name or te corporation 70 inc per-
sons WHO compose It and protect them though the pro-
a. DC n 10. name AL guarantees and safegIlar us
the Constitution for the protection OF property pos
sese by Individuals may therefore be yOAoI for the
projection the property OF corporations Aud as no
discriminating and partial legislation impoenS unequal
uuldeus tue properly Of individuals. would be
valid under fourteenth amendment 80 no lcgiSla-
ton npO-n such unequal burdens upon the property
of corporations Dc maintained. Inc taxation, there
fore Ot tae properly defendant upon an assess
ment OF It's value without deduction from IL OF tue
mortgage thereon. is TO that extent invalid.
Neither tc Constitution nor iars Of CGfOrnta relating
10 assessment Of railroads oPeated IN more taai' one
county prorde tor notice or an Opportunity 10 DC heard
,y M. ID
rct Nth he great principle chteh les o. he foundation
hs liberty o. his property ridoat an opportunity
0, bein0 heGrd against The proceedings
II there were no other objection the assessment we
due upon the OF the property after deductng
ncrefr0m the amount Of the mortgase but there Is an-
other objection. equal significance, which goes 20 the
validity the whole assessment No opportunity was
Afforded TO tho defendant be heard respecting IL be-
tore te state Board OF Equalization. 1t was made b. the
Board under tenth section OF article 10 or the Con
sututIon whcn declares tnat the franchise, road
all railroads operated In more than one county
In this state shall be- assessed by the state
Board OF Equalization at their actual value, and
ae saal Dc apporoned 10 the counties ctles ana
railroads are located In proportion TO the numoer
OF miles Of railway Laid IN such counties, cities anu cOun-
oher articles OF tao Constitution, and laws supple
mcntug directions, provide Tor the assessment oy
road way, IOadbed, rails and rongst OF railroads
operated in more tnan one county FOR nearing oy
propery- holders respecting the assessment ana for lts
EQUALIZATION by county boards Ample security Is thls
Afforded to individuals aglDst erroneous ana arDllraryas
seasnens Bat the OF the property mentioned
of railroads. operated more Than one county Is placed
entirely with state Board In People vs. supervisors
OF saor ento County Supreme Court or tue state
saiu tnat IL Is tue manifest lntent or tue Constitution
that valuation Of the railroad property mentioned In
secon 10 article - snail be finally liked aud deter
mined by the State Board OfEqulL Fne Switchboard
he exclusive power to assess and equazc ITO voue
Thus the Constitution furnishes asystem FOR the assess
ment of railroads operated iu more tam one county,
when Ia separate aud distnct from that provided Tor
tue assessment property :; and again The
portion OF the section quoted that portion aooVel is
clearly self executing We at loss TO Imagine how
any statute could the duty OF the state Board any
clearer than does THIS distinct and positive mandate or
the Constitution. Ii OOlDt coud possibly De Duilt
mon the words cited 1t would be dspcled by tue first
clause OF the section. Ali property except az mere
matter in this section pro 2Ged snail be assessed In the
county city, city aud county, town. township or district
in when ii 10 situated in the manner prescribed
by law Thus by the very language
~ the Constitution all other but the
railroad property mentioned must be assessed by Local
In the manner prescribed by Statute. Inc rail