Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-05-10

| the loyal people of the state of California and
which the Federal Government itself had de
clared 70 be work of military necessity, and
| which, Reconstructed, was to be dedicated for
all time to come, in times of peace as well as in
times ofwar, to the services of that country
Fealty to the Federal Constitution was even At
| that time in some sections of the country eS-
teemed crime. It is n sad reflection to-day,
that an appeal fo5 protection 20 The same instru-
ment, made in due form and under its guaran-
tees, should be held to be crime worthy OF the
ban of outlawry.
| In the proceedings which have been had, to
determine the validity of this special system of
! taxation. in no case and appeal to the records
with full knowledge of what they contain for
the truth of this assertion, has the company
endeayored for moment to delay final jIdg
ment. To determine this question, as early rs
1881 Mr.. Huntington commenced action in the
Circuit Court ofthe United States, in which the
whole matter ut issue between the companies
and the State could Ia finally determined The
State took technical objection To the jurisdic-
ton of the Court and the case went of upon
that ground and without reference to the merits.
| In 1852 the companies commenced proceedings
| in the superior Court of san Francisco on the
equity side, to determine the question at issue,
| and rendered into Court without prejudice, G6
per cent. of the tax claimed and desired to liti-
gate the balance Again the State interposed
technical objections, refused TO receive part pay
nent or lei the question be heard upon the
merits.
The state then commenced suits to recover
taxes. These cases were taken to the Federal
Courts. which Courts alone could finally deter
| mine the question at issue, and an agreed case
known as the san Mateo case was made up be
tween the State, represented by Judge Rhoads
and the company, represented by Judge Sander
son and myself This case was taken to
the Supreme Court, advanced on the calendar
argued and submitted for decision. III the
meantime an election had occurred and a
change in the State administration.
It was asserted by the press ami many able
lawyers that the case was not fair one This
was pressed upon the Supreme Court of the
United States, and that tribunal directed that
enough cases should be tried upon their merits
10 present all the questions and that when such
cases were brought up they would advance
them on the calendar and hear them az once
This fact was publicly announced by the Court
at the commencement of the Circuit Court last
August. In pursuance Of that announcement.
SIX cases were tried but one Of which has as
yet been appealed.
That case was taken UP ard a motion made TO
advance it, The Court refused, and the ground
of that refusal, stated i'll the telegram from
Washington to the press, was that all must be
brought there, and that they y ould rot hear tic
case by piccemeoi
Il viii be borne in mind that the companies,
although denying their legal liability, rendered
on account Go per cent. OF the aeopa. claimed,
1chtch lc0gld make tor rery auci greater than that
crcr 'erjcd upon any such property in ne LN1tcd
Stats.
They did pot claim as has been asserted the
right TO fix their taxes, but they claimed that no
tax had been levied. Moved by u sense Of
justice, and in obedience to moral obligations.
and no; 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 1852. 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.
It 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 asses
ment OF other property. and at Il time when the
Board believed it had the full power 20 raise
indi.idUal assessments TIP 70 the standard OF
value which they had fixed upon railroad
property, and that they intended to do so, but
owing to a 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 ut more than 66 per cent.
This was a concession by the very tribunal to
which the trainers of the Constitution had in
trusted the power of valuation, that the vaiu-
atiOns of 1880 and 1881 we're wrong In view of
this fact and in view OF the fact that the finances
of the different counties have been disarranged
by the non payment of these taxes in October,
1888. the railroad companies proposed to the
Governor the State to pay the taxes, although
they still believed them too high, for the three
years upon the basis of the assessment of 1892
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 mean time the State author
tiles had, with tire Spring Valley Water Com
pany and the San Francisco Gas Company, set
tied upon the basis of the tax as assessed, nth
ont interest attorneys fees, although as ag9inst
one or both companies the State had prevailed
in the litigation.
Against this adjustment, Which was a tiIiai
one beyond which no power can 80. no cry of
unfairness was raised by lny one and from that
hour to this as far rs I am advised, no one las
questioned The prOpricyer justice If d1t settlement
although it is conceded that the property OF the
water company would sell in open market for
100 per cent more than the assessment while it
is doubtful if the railroad property would bring
in the market within 10 or : per cent of the |
assessment.
After the refusal by the Governor to adjust
matters with the railroad company, and after
the settlement was made with the Spring Val |
ley Water Company and the Gas Company on
the 18th or 18th of November the san Francisco
Chronicle, in an article commenting upon the
railroads proposition, took the ground that the
Governor had done right. but maintained that d
fair settlement of the whole matter would be |
for the companies to pay the taxes fat as the
Spring Valley Water Company and the Gas Com
pany had done. That paper claimed with a
great deal of force that TO satisfy the people that
they were dealing fairly and only wanted the
principle decided that the railroad company
could afford TO pay the difference between the
proposition II had mace 10 tne Governor ana
the proposition of the Chronicle, which difference
would amount to about $4,000.
For the sake Of peace, and in order t5ot Ire no
tires Of the company in costcstiHq This ar might be
placed beyond al question, and il the firm be
lief-whlch l still hold-that no honest man,
familiar with all the circumstances, could even
criticise that proposition on behalf of the rail
road company, I acceded to it. From tie time
he railrodd companies Gsseed to that proposition,
ioicn 10 this time, they hare made propositions for
settlement or adjustment, although The contrary has
been represented By the Gora7lor Of the STATE and 5g
the Aforney- General, and although both tboSc officers
hare refused to correct their statements after their Of
te1ltion had been called to the Jjdc'.
The companies have been represented as max
ing proposition after proposition IN the belief