Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-12-08

| peneVeS IN and 1ndorSeS woman suffrage.
ANoeHER RAILROAD TAX CASE DECIDED.
I WASHINGTON, December 7th.-The Su-
preme Court, to-day, decided No Goethe
Northern Pacific Railroad Companv.appel-
lant from the Supreme Court of Dakota.
The suit was brought in the District Court
OF Traill county, Dakota, by the present
appellant, against Iver L. Rockne, Treas
urer OF the county to enioin him from
enforcing the collection of taxes assessed
on lands OF the company in that county.
1he verdict was for defendant The Su-
| Preme Court of the Territory affirmed the
| luqgmsnt: This Court now reyerses the
| Judgment and the case is remanded with
| directions to cause a decree to be entered
| perpetuaily enjoining the Treasurer of
1ralll county from any further proceedings
| to collect the taxes. This action is based
| upon the provision of the Act of Congress.
which prohibited the conveyance of
| any granted lands to company
until the costs of survey have been paid
| TO the Government. Until these costs
| are pad the Government retains title as
security, and this security would be neu-
| tralized if the lands could BE- sold for taxes.
! Inc Court says: We are aware of the use
| being made of this principle by companies.
who, having earned the lands neglected to
| pay these costs in order to prevent taxa
| ton. The remedy lies with Congress. and
Is OF easy application If that body will
| take steps TO enforce its liens for these costs
| OF survey by a sale of the lands or by a for
TEXTURE OF the title, the treasury Of the
! United States would soon he reimbursed
| Tor It's expenses III making these surveys.
and the States and Territories in which
| these lands lay would be RENTED to their
| appropriate rights Of taxation.
THE QUESTION OF COMMITTING HOME
| STEAD CLAIMS.
WASHINGTON, December 7th.-Mucb an
| prehension has been manifested in the
| West IN respect to the scope of Commits
| s!oner Sparks recent decision, to the effect
| that homestead Claimants. who have pre-
yiously had the benefit of the pre-emptioD
/ law, cannot commute their homestead
claims. Members of Congress have re-
| celyed many letters on the subject, indicat-
| ing widespread fear that this decision
| was to be made retroactive, which would
have the effect of upsetting the titles to
many claims which had passed, by pur-
chase, into the hands of third parties
Senator Van Wyck, on behalf of many of
his constituents, recently made inquiry of
| General Sparks in reference to the matter,
and was informed that the decision will.
| unless reversed by higher authority, be
guide for the future action of the land
| officers, but that the Commissioner is not
inclined to go into the action of his prede-
cessor, nor interfere with claims which
have already been secured under former
rulings of the Land Office in this respect
| unless fraud is shown to have been perpe-
| trated in securing such claims.
APPROPRIATIONS REQUIRED.
| WASHINGTON, December 7th.-The Secre-
| tary of the Treasury to-day transmitted to
| Congress his estimates of the appropriations
required for the fiscal year ending June so.
1887. The total amount of the estimate. as
| required for all the expenses of the Gov
ernment, is $685., $50, ,552 which is Sl5.67S,-
153 more than the sum called for in the
| estimates submitted last year, and $50, ,S26.-
| 10 more than the aggregate of the appro-
prlatlons Tor the present fiscal year.
| GOVERNOR sToNEMAN's PROTEST IN THE SAN
BERNARDINo CASE.
| WASHINGTON, December 7th-ln these
| dispatches yesterday reference was made to
| the fact that Governor StOneman had filed
| a protest in the Supreme Court against the
hearing of the San Bernardino case upon
| printed arguments in that tribunal The
| facts are that when Representative Henley
| came here from San Francisco he brought
| with him memorial, or communication,
| from Governor Stoneman, addressed TO
Chief Justice Waite. In this document
| Governor St0neman claims, as the head of
| the executive department of the State a
| general supervision over the administration
and enforcement of the laws, and recites
| the history of the litigation between the
| State and railroad companies in respect
/ to the assessment and collection of
| taxes. He severely criticised the manner
In which the Attorney General of Califor-
mia has managed the suits brought against
the railroad companies, to recover taxes.
and intimates that the Acknowledgement
has been in collusion with the railroad
companies to the injury of the interests of
the State. Governor Stoneman informs
the Chief Justice that he believes the At
torney-General of California had con
sented to submit to the Court the printed
arguments in the San Bernardino case
under theninety- day rule, Notwithstanding
special counsel had been engaged by the
State to argue this case. The Governor
asserted in his memorial that the San
Bernardlno case does not state accurately
all the facts at issue in the controversy. of
which the Court should be informed in
rendering decision applicable 10
other cases, notably the issues involved
III the Santa Clara case, that does accurately
state all the questions III dispute. The
Governors memorial expresses the hopt
that the San Bernardino case will not b..
considered by the Court until the other
cases are reached in regular order and the
special counsel employed by the State have
an opportunity to argue thereon Stone.
mans letter TO the Chief Justice is said to
reflect seriously upon the honesty of the
Attorney-General of the State in his con
nection with the railroad cases. Chief JUS
tice Waite submitted the Governors letter
TO private consultation of the Justices
last Saturday morning, and after short
discussion they decided that they could NOT
receive or consider any documents sub
mitted in such a manner, and bv
direction of the Court it was
accordingly returned to Representative
Henley. The Supreme Court holds
that all communications intended for
its consideration must be presented bv
counsel through the regular channels.
Judge Sanderson, of counsel for the rail
road company, said to your correspondent
tonight that the San Bernardino case does
not differ from the Santa Clara case in anv
respect, save that in the former case all the
taxes have been paid except the penalties,
fees and interest thereon. Santa Clara
county has not accepted the taxes offered
He says, in determining the validity of the
claims for these penalties, fees etc, the
Court must pass upon identically the same
questions as are involved in the Santa
Clara case, where the taxes have not been
paid.