Daily Los Angeles herald., 1884-06-03

I
this too In tho fice Of the fact that know ledge
Of the prices Of locomotives was brought to them;
this In face Of the tact that the value Of standard
locomotives certain and easy Of ascertain
ment a. the value Of Studebskef wagons.
In this respect THERE Bs no MISTAKE, and
when this issue was rendered 10 the people of
California In the Courts of the country, the
attorneys representing the State shrank from 1t
and stood upon tho legal tcchncality that the
power 81 this Boad Was absolute. submit
now that there IA not In the length and breath Of
this stale ONE sis0LE HONEST MAN WHO WORLD
SUBMIT that his property, for the purpose Of tax
alton, should be separated from the great mass
Of property, snd should be assessed without
notice. without an opportunity 10 be heard, and
as hnallty, by Board Of Commissioners which
could meet ut any time or place within tho State,
and which was bound by no rule exc pit It's own
pleasur,g submit that u such man can be found
he Is unworthy to be a citizen OF q country that
owes IL origin chiefly TO Resistance to Illegal tax
alton,
It is being said almost daily that the Central
Parfc Railroad Company, In resisting the pay.
nent Of tax levied under such a. law, and under
such circumstances. Is seeking 10 avoid obliga-
ons tat are imposed uppn all others. The
distinction between an assessment made under
the general laws Of this state and assess
ment made under the provisions Of the Con-
stitution In question. are as broai to tho honest
man, as the di tnction between the efforts OF the
industrious poor and those Of the highway
robber. Part Of the taxes laid upon this assess
ment are for county purposes, and the property
assessed upon which u tax is sought to be col
lected Is. under cur system OF government,
entitled to the protection OF the local govern
ment
II A owns piece OF property In Contra Costa
county Of the value OF 8, 90, and owns anoth-
or OF the value OF 81 000 and the Assessor OF that
county should assess the property OF at y, 900,
and the property Of B at 81 600 a would have
his remedy by an appeal to the local Board
elected by the people. The remedy would be
| afforded by the process OF equaza ion. But II
the hour should come when the alternative Of con
| fscation or a low assessment should be presented
by s1me state Board Of Equalization to the rail.
| road corr orstlons, Of this state, and mch
| corporations, instead Of appealing, as tn y
may have done. to the legally constituted
| tribunals OF the country, should yield TO the
demands Of the backmsiler, and their property
| within tho county Of Contra Costa should be
assessed at one fourth OF It's value, while oil
| other property was assessed at its full value,
| then the dangers Of such unlimited power and
| the wrongs which under is could be inflicted
| upon the people, would be manifest
Against these wrongs on one side or the other.
and as barrier for all time to come between the
exercise Of unlimited power and the citizen. the
people of this country adopted an amendment to
| the Federal Constitution, which provides, in
substance that mo person shall be deprivei OF
lie, liberty or property without due process OF
law, shall any State deny to any person with
in It's Jurisdiction the equal protection Of the |
law" |
THs RAILRoAp COMPANIES HAVE NOT SET THEM
ssLvRs ABOVE TiIa Law, but have without con |
ccaling any property, with the thousand times ex
pressed intention to abide by the law, whatever |
II may be. have appealed as any man might ap- |
peal TO the Courts established by the founders
Of this Government, to interpret, As last re- |
sort, the laws Of heecountry, constitutional or
otherwise.
The principal stockholders Of the Central Pact
fic Railroad Company are men who, in the mo-
ment OF that countrys greatest peril, with un-
bounded faith and confidence devoted what mon
ey they had, be 1t much or less all their energies
and skill. to the service Of that countrs and to
the construction Of great work which the loyal
people OF the State Of California and which the
Federal Government itself had declared to be
work Of military necessity. and which. II con
stueted, was to be dedicated for all me to come,
in times OF peace as well as in times OF war, to
the services Of that country.
fealty to the Federal Constitution even at
that times In some sections Of tho country esteem
ed crime II Is sad reflection to-day, that an
appeal for protectisn to the same instrument,
made in due form and under its guarantees should
be held to bc crime worthy Of the ban OF out
lawry.
In the proceedings which have been had, to de-
termine the validity Of this special system Of
taxation, in no ease. and appeal to the records
with full knowledge Of what they contain for the
truthof this assertion has the company endeay-
ored for moment to delay judgment. To de-
ington commenced action in the Circuit Court OF
the United States, in which the whole matter at
issue between the companies and the State could
be finally determined. The State took tech
u l
and the case went OF upon that ground and with
out reference to the merits. In 1882 the com |
panies commenced proceedings in the Superior
Court OF San Francisco on the equity side, to de-
termine the question at issue, and rendered into
Court, without prejudice, 66 per cent. OF the tax
claimed and desired to tigate the balance.
Again the State interposed technical objections.
refused to receive part payment or let the q,es-
tion be heard upon the merits.
The state then commenced suit to recover taxes. |
These cases taken to the Federal Courts
which Courts alone could finally determine the
question at ISSUE and an agreed case, known as
the San Mateo case, was made up between the
State, represented by Judge Rhosds, and the
company, represented by Judge Sanderson and
myself. This was taken to the Supreme
Court advanced on tho calendar, argued and sub
mitted for decision. In the meantime an cleo
ti0n had occurred, and change In the state adj
ministration.
1t was asserted by the press and many able
lawyers that the case was not fair one. This
was pressed upon the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States, and that tribunal directed that
enough cases should be tried upon their merits to
present all the questions, and that when such
cases were brought up they would advance them
was publicly announced by the Court at the
commencement Of the Circuit Count last August.
In pursuance Of that announcement, six cases
were tried, but one Of which has yet been appeal
cd.
That case was taken up and motion made to
advance it. The Court refused and the ground
Of that refusal, stated in telegram from Wash
ington to the press was that all must be brought
there, and that they would NOT HsAR THE CASE BY
PIEc6MfAL
1t will be borne in mind that the companies al
though denying their legal liability. rendered on
account 90 PR GEM. OF the AMOUNT CLAIMED, |
WHICH WOULD MAKE A TAX VERY MUCH GREATER
THAN THAT EVER LEVIED UPON ANY SUCH PROPERTY
IN THE UNITED STATES.
They did not claim. as has been asserted, the
right to fix their taxes. but they claimed that no
tax had been levied Moved by sense Of Justice, |
and In obedience to moral obligations, and not
to "humiliate State" they offered to pay more
than they believed was Justly due, when nothing |
could be legally exacted
The State Board Of Equalization, in 1882. re- |
duced the assessments upon railroad property, |
leaving it yet largely in excess Of that levied upon
such property In other States In the Union. II
was stated by the Chairman OF the Board at the |
time OF this reduction that the assessment Of 1880
had been made in advance of the assessment OF |
other property, and at time when the Board
believed 1t had the full power to raise individual
assessments up to the standard OF value which |
they had fixed upon railroad property, and that
they intended to do so, but owing to decision of
the Supreme Court Of the State, that power was
denied to them, and that the railroad property
was left standing at its full value, while other
property In the State had not been assessed at |
more than 66 per cent
This was a concession by the very tribunal to
which the Fl r'mers Of the Constitution had in
trusted the power OF valuation, that the va'ua- |
tions of 1880 and 1881 were wrong. In view OF |
this fact, and in view OF the fact that the finances
OF the different counties have been dsarra nged by
the non-rayment OF these taxes In October, 1888,
the railroad companies proposed to the Governor |
OF the State to pay the taxes, although they still
believe them too high, for the three years, upon
the basis Of the assessment OF lss2.
This proposal was by the Governor refused in |
November, not upon the ground that it was not |
just, but upon the ground that he had no power
to accept it,. In the meantime the State authori- |
ties had with the Spring Valley Water Company |
and the San Francisco ttaA CDmDluy SETTLED |
the basis OF the tax as assessed, WITHOUT INTEREST
OR ATTORNEYS FEEs, althoughas against one or |
both companies the State had prevailed In the
litigation
Against this adjustment, which was final one, |
beyond which no power can go, no cry of unfair |
ness was raised by any one, and from that hour to
this, as TAR rs am advised, NO ONE HAS QUESTION
I'D fHE PRoPRiErY OR JUSTICE or THAT sEfTLBMkNr, |
although 1t Is conceded that the property OF the |
water company would sell in open market for l0J
per cent. more than the assessment while it is |
doubtful II the railroad property would bring in
the market within 10 or IL per cent. of the ASSESS
mCnt.
After the refusal by the Governor to adjust
matters with the railroadc mpany, and after the |
settlement was made with the Spring Valley Wa
ter Company and the Gas Company on the 18th or
18th OF November, the San Francisco Chronicle"
in an article commenting upon the railroads pro
position, took the ground that the Governor had |
done right, but maintained that fair settlement |
Of the whole matter would be for the companies to
pay the taxes Hat asthe Spring valleysWater Com
pany and the Gas Company had done. That pa
per claimed, with great deal Of force, that to
satisfy the people that they dealing fairly,
and only wanted the principle decided that the |
railroad company could afford to pay the differ
once between the proposition 1t had made to the
Governor and the proposition Of the Chronicle" ,
which difference would amount to about s140,0O0
For TIE sAKs or iEAcE and IN ORDER THAT THE ,
MOTIVES or rDE COMPANY IN c0STEsriSa THIS TAX !
AI0iiT BE PLACED BEYOND ALL QUESTION, and In the !
firm belief which still hold-that no honest i
familiar with all the circumstances coul leyen ,
crticse that proposition ON behalf Of the rail- i
road company, acceeded to it. From the time ,
the railroad companies assented TO that propo-
siton, down to this time, they have made no (
propositions for settlement or adjustment, al i,
though the contrary has been represented by the !
Governor Of the State and by the Attorney Gen {
eral and although both those officers have re- /
fuse to correct their stat smentsaft their atten-