Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-12-26

Fourteenth Amendment by discrimina-
ton against them in ascertaining their
value for the purposes of taxation. There
was no claim that the property was not
| assessed at its cash value-the same as other
property; but that they were assessed by a
Board of Commissioners; that their prop
erty was assessed as real estate and taxed
as SUCH while other corporations paid a
kind of income tax. Other real estate was
! assessed by local assessors. Justice Matt
hews says there is nothing to forbid the
classification of property for purposes OF
taxation and the valuation of different
classes by different methods. He further
says
WHAT EQUALITY MEANS.
" The rule of equality in respect to the
subject only requires the same means and
methods to be applied impartially to all
the constituents OF each class, so that the
law shall operate equally and uniformly
upon the person in similar circumstances.
There is no objection, therefore, to the dis
elimination made as between railroad COM
panies and other corporations in the
methods and fhstrumentalities By which
the value of their property is ascertained.
The right to classify railroad property as a
separate class for purposes of taxation
grows out of the inherent nature of the
property and necessarily involves the right
on its part (the Legislature) to devise and
carry into effect distinct scheme with
different tribunals in the proceeding to
value it."
An examination Of the opinions enunci-
ated by Judges Field and Sawyer in the
San Mateo and Santa Clara cases will find
them III entire harmony not only with the
principle, but almost the language of the
Court IN the Kentucky. cases. On this
point Judge Sawyer says g Sawyer, 309):
. We do not conceive that provision
tor assessing railroads operated in more
than one county by the State Board of
Equalization, while other local property is
assessed by the local Assessors, would be
denying the equal protection of the laws,
provided the assessment in the former case
Is made upon the same basis, and upon the
same principles, etc, as in the latter. Nor
do we think that the assessment Of the
railroad as & unit is Objectionable Indeed,
this seems to be the only practicable way
OF assessing such a road
Indeed, the right of classification was not
seriously questioned in the California eases.
Justice Field simply held that the classifi-
cations must be based on equitable DIinci-
pies. He says % SAWYER, 199}:
But 1t IS urged that property may be
divided into classes and subjected to differ
ent rates that such classification NAV
be made from inherent differences in
the nature of different parcels of property.
and also from the different uses to which
the same property may be applied As al
ready mentioned, the Constitution of the
State provides, with respect to property,
that 1t shall be taxed in proportion to its
value; the classification of property. either
from its distinctive character or its peculiar
ha do II
taxation according to value
An examination of the opinion in the
Kentucky cases will disclose the fact that
no equitable question was involved twas
not claimed, as in this State, that the roads
were compelled to bear an unjust proper
ton of the public burdens, by reason of the
unequal taxation. 1t was not claimed that
they were subjected to pay double taxation,
but simply that the Legislature had dis
eliminated against them by prescribing diff
ferent forms, means or methods for ascer-
tanning the value of their property.
is IT SYSTEM OR A STANDARD?
The question remains to be settled
whether the terms means, methods -
and "instrumentalities, as applied to the
medium of ascertaining the values of taxable
property, as used by Justice Matthews and
concurred in by the Court, is intended to
designate the board, officer or quasi-iudicial
authority with the powers and jurisdiction
thereof, or whether it is intended to mean
the gauge or standard of measurement by
which such authority may ascertain such
values, or both, or whether the latter pow
ers are necessarily included within the
former. In other words, is it intended that
such a rule as the following would be
valid? As to valuation for the purposes OF
taxation, all property shall be classified
into two classes First, railroad property
which shall be taxed at double its cash
value; second, all other property. which
shall be taxed at its actual cash value. This
was the principal point on which the Cali
fornia cases were decided, and we shall ex-
anime the question more in detail further
on in this article.
The element of classification, in the Ian
guage of Justice Miller, requires the same
means TO be applied impartially to the
constituents of each class, so that the law
shall operate equally and uniformly upon
the person in similar circumstances" This
element is lacking in the classification OF
California railroads. 1t was in evidence in
the Santa Clara case that private citizen
owns a railroad extending from the city OF
Marysville, in Yuba county, to 0roville, in
Butte county. This railroad is not assessed
as the railroads of corporations. If this
road were covered by mortgage to its full
value, the owner would pay no taxes upon
it, while another road from Marysville to
Sacramento, covered by a like mortgage,
but owned by corporation, or aggregation
of citizens, would pay taxes to its full val
ne. 1t will thus be seen that the element
of equality so essential to bring the Cali
fornia cases within the rule is lacking. In
the language of Justice Field Is SAWYER,
201):
1T is not classifying property to make a
distinction Of that character in estimating
its value as basis for taxation. 1t is max
ing the amount of taxation depend, not
upon the nature of the property or its use.
but upon its ownership; and if this can be
DONE there Is no protection against unequal
and oppressive taxation
THE LAW CANNOT BE UNJUST.
Apropos to this, is the language of JUS
tice Matthews, in the Kentucky decision
If the system of taxation be found to be
arbitrary, oppressive and unjust it will be
declared to be not due process of law"
To sum up, two principles were settled
by the Kentucky decision, neither of which
brought the case within the Fourteenth
Amendment.
First-Statutory notice is sufficient for
the purposes of assessment and taxation.
Second-The classification of property
for the purposes of assessment and taxa
ton is proper and permissible where the
rule works equally on all the class, and APP
plies impartially to all the constituents I'M
der like circumstances, without working
oppression and injustice
| 1t was decided in the California cases that
the railroads did not have even statutory
notice, and that the classification as made
Disseminated unjustly against species OF
ownership. On both points the cases are
almost Numerically opposed to the Ken.
| lucky suit. Had the latter case been forti-
| fed on either point with the same state Of
facts which exist in the California cases
the decision would have been exactly the
reverse of what it was. The Court of AID.
peals of Kentucky, in deciding the cases
| land the decision was affirmed by the Su.
preme Court, referred to the same class Of
cases, then recently tried in California, and
the Judges were of the opinion that the
facts were so dissimilar that the cases mus
necessarily differ, and diverse conclusions
be reached. 1t would be difficult to per.
ceive how Justice Field could consistently
do anything else than concur with the de.
cision in the Kentucky cases, and it will be
still stranger if the Supreme Court should
inconsistently fail to affirm their own opin.
ion and concur with Justice Field when
they decide the celebrated California rail.
/ 4 IL