Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-09-21
The Railroad Tax Money.

The Railroad Tax Money.
Is. +. Alta, September 2Oth.1
The taxes of the Southern and Central
Pacific Railroads for the years 1883 and
1854 have been adjusted, as to the principal.
and paid under Judgment of the Federal
Court to Attorney General Marshall; leav-
ing the interest, costs and penalties to fol-
low final judgment in the Federal Supreme
Court upon appeal. Under the new law
the amounts 50 paid must go first into the
State Treasury, by the Controllers warrant,
and the share of each county will be dis
tributed by the state. Under the old law
the counties were the primary recipients,
and the tender 10 the State Treasury was
made by them.
This last payment brings the payment of
the principal of the railroad taxes Up to
date. As between the 4 ttorney-General
and the Controller it will simply renew the
discussion Of the right to pay the principal
on account by order Of the Court and in
satisfaction OF a consent judgment. The
Federal supreme Court having already de
clded that questions affecting the interest
penalties and costs viii be heard ON appeal
from such Judgment, that part of the con-
I tr0yerSy may be considered settled and
those who heReve in judicial adjustments
will obey that settlement. In view of the
history of this veyatious and damaging
litigation, il is strange that any one should
lmpeach The propriety of such a payment
on account as is made in satisfaction of
these judgments
The spirit of our people which antagon-
lied compromise with these corporations
IS brave and commendable spirit, wholly
worthy OF jreemen, but il has been di-
verified from its legitimate Office by the false
characterization OF these payments on ac-
count as Il compromise.
1t Is rule, as old as equity jurisprudence
that under no circumstances will Court of
equity enjoin the collection of tax, unless
the party who seeks the Injunction shows
either III his bill or affidavit that he has al
ready paid fair tax upon the property as
sesSed and only desires to contest the portion
OF the tax which lie alleges is unfair and in
equitable. This rule is proved by the his
tory Of these cases, to have been well un-
derstood by MeSsrs. Rhodes q Barstow and
ID. NJ. Delmas. In 1881 c. =. Huntington,
of the Central Pacific road, brought suit
against Charles l.. Palmer, Tax Collector of
Alameda county, and other Tax Collectors,
III which he sought to enioin them from
collecting the railroad taxes levied for that
year. The suit was in the Circuit Court of
the United States, Messrs. McAllister Il
Bergln representing The plaintiff. Rhodes &
Barstow and Mr.. DelmaS, with others
represented the Tax Collectors, and objected
to the complaint on the ground that the
! plaintiff had tHaCd 10 dHege payment If aRg
part u the tue, and for want OF tins allega-
uOn alone, without reference to any other
| point, insisted that the bill was without
equity and should be dismissed. The Court
sustained the objection and dismissed the
bill, holding that no injunction would be
granted to stay collection upon a bill
which did not a!frmatively show that so
much OF the tax as was conceded To be
Just, had been paid or rendered without
demanding receipt in full. The Court
also held that bill to restrain the payment
of taxes which did not show payment or
unconditional tender of such conceded
part OF the tax, presented no equity sufli-
| Gent to justify either preliminary or final
relief
Judge Sawyer in discussing this point
quoted all the cases decided by the Federal
| supreme Court in the State railroad tax
case, - |. 5. Reports, =. So, as follows;
But there Is another principle of equitable
! jurisprudence which forbids in these cases the
| interference OF a Court of Chancary in favor of
| compliments. 1t is that universal rule which
! requires that he who seeks equity at the hands
| of the Court must first do equity.
The defendants i'll all these cases are the
clerks and tTcasureTs of the couuties-the clerk,
| VINO collects the taxes.
These taxes are both the State and county
| taxes. IL is clear from the statements of the
| bills and from what we have already said thar
| there must be in every county mentioned CON
| siderable amount of real estate and personal
property coming within the character of local
/ tangible property, and subjected 10 taxation on
/ precisely the same principles, and no other
| that all other personal and real estate within
the county is taxed. 1t is equally clear that the
| roadbcd within each county is liable to be
! q Nod Il #Ia raNa
| taxed. why have not complainantS paid this
| taxi In reference to the latter il is said that
| they resist the rule by which the value of the
| rOadbed in each county is aScprtaincd and
pay tax by some rule 1.-THE rule adopted gives
| too large a valuation III some counties it must
be too small in others. What right have they to
| resist the tax in the latter case? And i'll the
| former is the whole tax void because the as
seSsInent Is TOO large Should they pay nothing
and escape wholly because they have been
assessed too high? These questions answer
! themselves. Before complainants seek the aid
| OF the Court to be relieved of the excessive tax.
| they should pay what is due. Before they ask
| equitable relief they should do that Justice
| which is necessary to enable the Court to hear
! them.
1t is a profitable thing for corporations or in
diY!duals whose taxes are very large to obtain a
preliminary injunction as TO all their taxes con-
| test the case through several years litigation
! ana when in the end IL j. found that but n small
! pait OF me tax should be permanently enj0ined.
SEEhlt 20 pay tue balance. This is not equity
II IS IN direct violation of the first priucines of
equity jurisdiction. II Is not sufficient 70 say i'm
| erect that they are ready and willing to nay
! NIa"efei may be touud due. They must first
| pay what is conceded 10 he due. or what can he
i9uiiu % DC que on the i&ce OF the bill or to be
| SHOWN BY ahIdaFn due, whether conceded or
| NOT, before the preliminary injunction can be
granted The State is not 10 be TIM, ticd M, as
TO tax GA which there is no contest by itIrnrfrrr
| II with that which is contested If The pr6pef
! oinccr refuses 10 receive part Of The h. n
| must he rendered, and rendered yithont tbp
cohdlii0n annexed OF q receipt IN full for all the
/ taxes assessed
We are satisfied that an Observance of tbis
! pnneple would prevent the larger part of the
! suits for restraining collection of t5vrs which
now come into the Courts Welay it down With
| unanimity as 81 ri 20 govern the Courts Of The
! lhiled states n their action in such cases
! The quotation is sufficient to show that
1t Is not only the right but the duty Of the
! taxpayer who complains that the fa.. is
more than in Justice it should he ;" nav ~
! that which he admits would be due II ;be
! tax had been fairly laid
/ IL Is difficult To- conceive that the at
! tOrneys, who are understood to be ADVISING
! the Controller that he has no right tn re-
! ceIye payments on account, are ignorant OF
! this law upon the subject. of which they
/ ayailed themselves to throw this first lax
| case out of Court IN Huntington vs..
Palmer+he railroad company sought to get
uetISloh on the merits, but Messrs
! Rhodes, Barstow and Delmas objected to
the Court deciding it on the merits. be-
cause the railroad company had not paid.
nor offered to pay part ot' the tar-so much
/ of it as the company conceded would be
! Just under fair assessment! But for this
! objection the case would long ago have
/ been decided on its merits and the whole
| controversy settled. After this decision.
which those lawyers insisted should be
made, the railroad company has rendered
and paid a part of its tax, and the same
! attorneys say that ii is wrong
This statement we take from the records.
and it seems to us 70 be conclusive of the
! controversy. The Controller should re-
ceiYe this money distribute their share To
the counties, and relieve the people of the
floating debts which, in many instaI ees.
they are striving 10 convert into bonded