Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-01-28
RAILROAD TAXES.

instant
Editor BUlletin: After three years liti.
CATION an agreement has been made be-
tween the State authorities and the rail.
road companies to adjust the taxes hereto
fore in dispute. Prior to the adoption of
the New Constitution the railroad compa-
nies hsd for many years, without any con-
test promptly paid all taxes assessed them.
After the New Constitution was adopted,
which by its terms imposed the duty OF
assessing railroads operated in more than
one county upon the State Board Of Equal
izstion, the railroad companies affected
contested the validity and business OF the
taxes, chiefly upon two grounds.
First, that the provisions of the Consti-
tuition Of the State of California, which
allowed all other persons and corporations
10 deduct mortgages from the value Of their
property, and provided that the value of
such mortgages should be assessed to the
holders thereof, but denied that deduction
to the companies interested, violated not
only .he principles which are the iounda.
tion Of all lust taxation, namely, equality
| in the apportioument, but also the Four
! teenth Amendment 10 the Constitution of
! the -United States. which requiIes such
| equality.
Second, that such provisions gave to
every other person sud corporation the
| right to a hearing before their liability WAS
| fixed, and the right Of appeal, and denied
both of these rights to the companies
assessed by the State Board of Equaliza-
ton, thereby violating the provisions of
the Federal Constitution, which declares
that no person shall be deprived Of prop
erty without cue process OF law; ana that
no State shall deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection Of the
law.
All Of the suits to enforce the collection
of these taxes were transferred to the Uni.
ted States Circuit Court, and the San Ma
teo case came up for hearing before Justice
Field and Judge Sawyer, upen stipulation
as to the facts, made by Attorney General
Hart snd Mr.. Rhodes, counsel for the
plaintiff, and by the attorneys for the rail
road company. After an elaborate argu-
ment, Judgment was rendered in favor of
the railroad company. From the Judgment
a writ of error was taken to the Supreme
Court OF the United States.
The election came on, involving q change
in the personnel of the State administration,
and it was asserted IN every quarter that
the States side of the question. The case
was argued in the Supreme Court Of the
United st t,tes and submitted for decision.
| Other cases were presented IN the Circuit
Court of California. and in view Of the as
segtious that had been made about the San
| MateO case the railroad company rsluct-
art'y consented that the submission Of the
| San MateO case may be set aside, and cases
enough tried in the Circuit Court (by new
counsel coming in under the present ad-
ministratioDl to represent all tie facts, and
that upon these cases being taken to the
United States Supreme Court they should
be advanced. In pursuance OF this agree
ment several cases were tried and decisions
were given therein in favor of the railroad
companies.
The attorney for the State produced
writ Of error in a single case, to wit, the
Santa Clara case, and moved to advance
this case on the calendar, but the Supreme
Court refused to hear the litigation piece
meal, and required all the cases that had
been tried to be brought up hence the
! delay.
In 1852 the railroad companies brought
| IN the Superior Court Of San Francisco,
before Judge Waymire-now one of the
| counsel for the State-a series Of injuuc.
/ tion suits, and rendered in Court and Of
fered TO pay without prejudice 66 per cent.
| Of all the taxes as assessed,
| The taxes for the wear 1850 81 were as.
, sessed by the State Board of Equalization
| before other assessments were made, and
| before the 5 sate Board could know at what
ratio other property would be assessed. In
| 1852. aHd after the Supreme Court of Cali
fornia had decided that the State Board of
Equalization had no right to raise individ-
usl assessments, the State Board again as.
sessed the railroad property at about 66
per cent. of the previous assessment, the
Chairman of the Board stating in open
Board that the assessments for the preced.
ing years had been made high, upon the
theory that the Board had the right to raise
all other assessments in tine State to the
same standard. This portion of the pro-
ceedings Of the Board was published in the
press of that data, and was a concession by
the highest authority in the State that the
assessments for the preceding years were
erroneous.
have already shown in private COM
munic2tion to your paper that the assess
ment for the year 1882 was a higher as
sessment than was ever made upon railroad
property in any State in the Union al.
though 10 some States there were double
track railroads, and in others four track
roads, OF far greater value than any roads
in this State.
Another fact which has been lost sight
OF III consideration of this matter, is that
all of the railroad is not assessed By the
State Board of Equalization that the
warehouses, stations, depOSs, wat sta.
tions, work shops and steam ferry boats,
all Of which are as much q part of the
road as the rails, and which IN other States
were included in the assessment, were all
separately assessed by the County AS
SCISSORS, and the taxes fer these hai all
been paid for the years in question.
The lands belonging to the railroad COM
pany were also all separately assessed, and
the taxes paid without delay.
After the assessment of 1882 and the
concession made by the State Board of
Equalization, settlements were made with
a majority of the counties interested,
which settlements reduced the principal
for the three years to about $500 600.
Notwitbsta nding the fact that the rail-
rosd companies have prevailed IN tlz !lti-
CATION. and Notwithstanding the fact that
Ute attorneys who had taken these cases
on contingent fees for the State had, after
hearing them argued, demanded cash fees
in addition, thus showing their lack of
faith in the tinal result, the railroad com.
panies now offer to settle the unpaid taxes
for the years 1850, 1851 and 1882 as levied.
Tni3 proposition the State authorities
have, understand, accepted, the Attorney
General holding that it is very doubtful
whether the State, in any event, could re.
cover more.
As to the taxes for the year 1883, the
Legislature Of last winter provided for a
State assessment roll, upon which taxes
assessed by the State Board Of Equaliza.
ton should be placed
The railroad companies have already
rendered large proportion Of these taxes,
under an agreement that if the portion
rendered were accepted, il should not
prejudice the right of the State and coun-
ties TO recover the balance. The Controller
has refused to permit these part payments
TO be made.
When the railroad companies have paid
the 5000. 900 in question, they will nave
paid for the three years more than 81 000,-
600 State and county taxes, nearly three
fourths Of which, under the decisions of
the Court, they were not legally liable for.
When irresponsible fault-6nders can point
to another corporation which has to like