Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-11-24

anllnaleS lne rallTOau companies IN all THIS
tax dispute:
SAN FRANCISCO, November D. 1885.
Mr.. ,I0ha p. DHnn--DEAR SIR: l have before
me your "open letter" of November 2lst. To
my letter addressed to Messrs. Rhodes and Del
mas, copy of which you make part of yours,
Judge Rhodes had already replied, recognizing
in a suitable manner the courtesy which | had
extended and promising at an early day to make
d public statement. ! do not admit the right OF
Mr.. Delmas to transfer the matter to any one.
The misrepresentation contained in his letter
to you Will be noticed in the proper manner.
You pror ose, in order that you may be satisfied
of the good faith of my clients, to enter into
certain stipulations with me relative to the
pending tax cases. You have recently pub
iished a letter 10 the world in which you gravely
assert that stipulations made by me have no
binding force whatever because ! am not attor-
ney of record. The Supreme Court of Califor-
mia and the Circuit Court have decided that YOU
have nothing whatever to do with these cases.
When you shall change your opinion as TO my
powers, and when the Courts shall have changed
theirs as TO your powers, | will consider your
propositions. That you may be entirely satisfied
with the good faith of my clients. and not here
after have to give them the benefit of the
doubt | will stipulate for my clients in form
which the Courts will hold binding if you will
procure Il like binding stipulation on the part OF
the State. as follows
First-To set aside all judgments and orders
heretofore made by any Court in all or any of
the tax cases, and to withdraw all answers and
defenses therein.
Second-To take an account of all assessments
made against my clients for the past five years
and all payments made thereon.
Third-To let the Court determine upon prin-
ciples of right and justice-al legal TECHNICAL.
ties being waived ON either side, and with OF
without appeal, as you may preter-whetheI
the railroad assessments were made upon basis
of equality and uniformity with the average
assessment of other property in the State for the
corresponding years, aud whether or not the
have been justly charged had the assessments
been so made.
Fourth-If it is decided by the Court that the
sum paid is less than the amount equitably due
that judgment shall be rendered against the
railroad companies for the balance but il the
Courts decide that the payments have been
greater than the amount equitably due, then
the faith of the State is pledged TO return the
railroad companies the excess.
Fitth-One case presenting fairly the legal
questions raised in the cases 10 be reserved and
presented to the Supreme Court of the United
States for decision, in order that the State and
companies may hereafter understand their re
spective legal rights.
The State cannot afford to take from any Of
its citizens more than is due. In my jud smenl
the railroad companies have already paid nearly
double what was equitably due.
AS to the difference between us relative tC
amounts paid, am having q statement made
up from the vouchers, and will publish it. From
this statement you will get the data by which
your books can be corrected, and the full
amount paid can be shown by them.
Relative to the submission of the San Bernar-
dino case under the ninety day rule, have only
this to say That the attorney for the State
pressed for such submission and agreed to sub
nit but not until after the Kentucky cases had
been decided. You say the Judiciary Commit.
tee at the extra session" reported that the San
Bernsrdino case could not be heard by the Su,
preme Court. The Supreme Court has since de
cided that it could be heard on the merits.
would respectfully suggest that the extra ses
SION is no longer authority. The people having
at the last election reversed the g extra session
Respectfully, your friend,
CREED RAYMOND