Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-01-04
TIE PonRFETNrH ANEEDMgET AID
CORPORATIONS.

Supreme Court, will be decided upon the
point raised by ex-senator Conkling,
namely that the method of assessing corpo-
rate property provided by the Conatltu-
ton Of California is in conflict with the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu-
ton of the United States. The California
Constitution provides that in the assess
ment of corporations the latter shall not
be allowed to deduct mortgages from their
taxable property whereas this deduction
ia permitted to individuals. The language
of the Fourteenth Amendment relied on
by counsel is "nor shall any State de-
"prive any person of life, liberty or prop
"erty without due process of law, nor
" deny TO any person within its jurisdic-
"tion the equal protection of the law"
OF course there are two main points in.
volved here. The first is, whether cor
porations come under the term "persons"
in the Fourteenth Amendment. The other
is whether, if they are covered by this term,
they have been deprived of property with
'out due process of law, " or have been g de-
MED Unequal protectionof the law" 1t is
commended by counsel for the corporations
that both these questions must be an
swered in the affirmative, and this con-
tention is supported by very cogent
line of argument. There are many pre-
cedents for the inclusion of corporations
under the head of persons. They are. in
fact, legal persons, and this is recognized
in long line of judicial decisions. And
it is obvious that the denial of this involves
the irrational position that when several
individuals combine for the transaction of
business, and form corporation, they
thereby in some mysterious way diveEt
themselves of their rights and privileges as
citizens.
Corporations are formed for the facilita-
ton of enterprise and commerce. not for
their hiuderance. In every civilized state
and country it has been deemed sound
policy to encourage this kind of partner
ship. Nowhere until now has it been i'm
agined that the act of incorporation in.
volved the surrender or deprivation of pre-
existing rights and claims to protection.
If A, B and c, being American citizens,
possess an indefeasible right to security
against oppression and discrimination, how
can they lose that right by going into part.
nership with one another? Any decision
to the effect that the act of incorporation
involved loss of protection would inevita.
bly, operate as Encouragement to that
form of enterprise. But it is impossible to
conceive any rational ground for such de.
cision. Nor is the second point less obvi-
GUS. When the State Constitution pro-
vided that corporations should not be
allowed to deduct their mortgages, it dis
tinctly Disseminated against them and it
follows that it Disseminated against the
individuals composing the corporations. It
has been alleged, in palliation OF this patent
injustice, that the holders of corporate
mortgages are or may be foreigners, beyond
the jurisdiction of the State. Tkis will
not serve. The same consideration ap.
plies with precisely the same force to all
mortgages. In allowing individuals to de.
duct mortgages the Constitution did not
stop to consider where or by whom such
mortgages were or might be held. Its
trainers possessed no knowledge on the
subject. What they did, and what they
meant to do, was to discriminate injuri-
ously and with deliberate and purposeful
injustice, against the corporations.
They exempted private mortgages, and
refused to exempt railroad mortgages, be-
cause they were animated by spirit of IN.
reasonable and unjustifable hostility to
the railroad corporations. They did not in.
tend to hold the balance evenly, and assur.
eddy they did what they set out to do. The
question is whether the Fifteenth Amend
ment covers the case. If corporations are
to be regarded as persons" so far as the
implications Of the amendment are con-
cerned, then it cannot be seriously denied
that the State Constitution is in conflict
with the supreme law of the land. And
apart from all legal subtleties, it is plain to
the meanest comprehension that the State
Constitution does establish a separate law
of assessment for those citizens of the
State who are engaged in the transportation
business. That is the fundamental fact of
the case. The advocates of legalized op-
preston are making desperate attempt to
confuse public opinion by talking largely
about corporations being the creatures
of the State. Probably more rubbish
has been written concerning that theory
than about almost any other legal piece of
nonsense. Many years ago Lord Coke
happened to observe that " corporations
"had no souls, and ever since that day
every fat-witted scribbler who wishes to
say something profound has repeated that
saying as though it was inspired. It is,
however, significant that it is never used
but when the purpose is to excuse or JUS
tify some manifest injustice. Exactly in
the same way the orthodox Mussulman de.
tends his treatment of women by alleging
that they have no souls.
The conspicuous truth behind all suchfus-
tan is that corporations are simply aggre.
cations of individuals, combined for bust.
ness purposes. They must embrace all the
rights, immunities and privileges possessed
severally by their respective members prior
to the act of incorporation. They must
be entitled, in their aggregated condition,
TO the same protection that they were pre-
viously entitled to. It is not giving them
the same protection to discriminate against
them in the method of assessing their
taxes. To do that is to declare that in
corporation involves degradation to all the
incorporators. We do not think that the