Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-09-02
THE RAILROAD TAX MONEY
As Viewed InsIde the Lines of the Con-
trolIef,E Party

lsan Francisco Alta, September 1stl
The letter of Controller Dunn in answer
to the offer by the Attorney General of
nearly half million of railroad taxes be-
longing 10 the State and County Treasures,
has been but little discussed and seems not
to have relighted the original controversy
which underiies all these issues The Con-
trolier reasons from false premise, we
fear. He treats the issue as between the
State and the railroads, when in fact the
railroads have no further interest in it.
They were sued rs delinquent debtors by
the State The Courts vacated the assess
Inents which created the debt The rail
roads, pending appeal, consented to a
Judgment against them for the principal of
the debt, and that judgment they paid the
money, under order of the Court, being
paid 10 the Attorney-Generai who repre-
scented the State. This payment satisfied
the judgment II receipted the principal
of the taxes. Neither the Controller nor
the State can 90 behind that Judgment
The roads have paid that tax once, and
cannot be compelled TO pay il again. 1t is
matter Of 40 interest to them whether
Mr.. Dunn receives il or the State gets il, or
not If Attorney General Marshall were
SO lost 20 all sense of honor az to take it
and 4" 90 to the Springs. the State could
not collect 1t again from Tie railroads nor
Htuiu liz Ait-rOfttss ItsphD from the Al
torney-Generai bond. which is for only
$4,000.
Has all Of this occurred to Mr.. Dunn?
Has he any plan FOR going behind these
judgments and getting more money than
the principal of the taxes which they put
within his rcach2 II this money IS lost,
can he make them pay il again In fine,
as to this particular sum can lie do any
thing better for the State than has been
done?
If the Controller have in reserve no such
plan, if he cannot disturb these judgments
which relate solely to the principal of the
taxes. it is evident that concerning this
particular half million OF money there is
no longer an issue between the State and
the railroads, and the mere political or per-
sonal desirability OF such an issue cannot
create it,
Sir. Dunn insists that the law required
the railroads TO pay their taxes in the first
instance and then sue the State, and that,
because they did not do this, there is con-
tamiBatlon in the touch OF the principal
paid III Court on account.
Let us all be honest about IT. for it is
business transaction. The law requires in
dlyldual debtors to pay their debts but
they don't do il; they often have to he
sued. Like the railroads, they default their
legal obligations. But, if Mr.. Dunn were
private creditor, compelled to sue his
debtor, and pending suit his debtor should
offer to pay the principal on account, leav-
ing interest costs and peualtie, TO follow
final Judgment, would there be any legal
or business improperly or moral turpitude
in accepting it? The question answers IL
self, for the incident is almost of daily
occurrence in actions for debt
Mr.. Dunn should III his next letter,
mike fsfatr that
now in the custody of the A;torney-Gen-
eral there IS still an unsettled issue between
the State and the railroads, for the people
are beginning TO see in it only an issue be-
tween two State officers. If he cannot
make such showing; if the judgment
under which this money was paid is in
capable of disturbance, we are at a loss for
any justification Of its further exclusion
from the public treasures.