Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1886-05-11
CALIFORNIA FAX CASES.
Decisions Rendered Sy the U. ).
Supreme Court.

8upEGluC COAEte
WAsHIHeros, May l0.--In the case
County Of San Bernardino VS.. the South
ern Pacific Railway Company, the iudg-
ment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
In this case, as in other California rail-
road tax cases, the assessments, in the
Judgment Of the court. speaking through
Justice Harlan, improperly included
feuce upon lines of railroad. Justice
Harlan delivered an opinion in the
county Of Santa Clara VS.. the Southern
Pacific Railway Company. Innumber 622
People Of the State Of California vs.. the
Same; No. 62l, People OF the State Of
California VS.. Central Pacific Railroad
Co. Justice Harlan delivered the opin-
ion of the Court. These are what are
known as the California railroad tag
cases" and we're brought to recover
county and State taxes claimed to be
due from the railroad companies. which
were assessed under section 1864 OF the
Political Code OF California. The spe-
cial grounds of defense were that there
were no State provisions; that the pro.
visions Of the Constitution and laws
OF California in respect to the az.
sessment for taxation Of the prop
erty of railroads operated ia more
than one county are in violation Of
the fourteenth amendment Of the consti.
tuition, as they require an assessment OF
property at its full money value, and
without making deductions for mort
cages covering property assessed; that
section 2,644 Of political code was not
constitutionally enacted by the Legisla-
ture, and had not the force OF law. A
majority Of the Court did not think that
it was necessary to consider the question
OF the constitutionality of the law, by
which the case was determined by
the Court below, but affirmed
its judgment entirely upon the
ground that assessments cannot be
basis of Judgment against the company.
Justice Field, in a separate opinion.
saws; II agree to the judgment of the
court in this and other tax cases, but |
regret it has not been deemed consistent
with its duties to decide important con-
stitutional questions involved, and par
ticulsrly one which was SO fully consid.
cred in the Circuit court, that in assess
ment according to which taxes claimed
were levied on, unlawful and unjust
discrimination was made between the
property Of defendants and property
Of individuals to its disadvantage,
thus subjecting it to an unequal share of
the public burdens, and to that extent
it of that equal protection of
the laws guaranteed by the Eighteenth
to the Constitution. The
question is one of transcendent import
ance, and it will come to this court, and
continue to come, until it ia authorita-
lively decided in harmony with the
great constitutional amendment which
insures to every one, whatever his posi-
ton or association may be, equal pro-
lection OF the laws.
The Supreme Court to-day also de-
cided case number 203, Johu Mullan
and Francis Avery appellants VS.. the
United States for the district Of Califor-
MIA. The case related to the title of
John Mullan and Francis Avery to
portion Of land, Mount Diablo Meridian.
listed to the State Of California as school
indemnity selection, on the ground that
when the selection was made and when it
was listed the land was not COAL land. and
SO known by the officers of the State
and by Mullan and Avery when they
afterwards acquired title from the state.
The Circuit Court Of the United States
for the district of California entered a
decision vacating the title Of the state
and of Mullan and Avery. and the de-
cree is hero affirmed. No. 1916, the
United States vs. Kagoms, alias "Paetoh
Billy" and Mahawha, alias Ben" On
a certificate Of diversion in opinion be-
tween the Judges for California, the
Supreme Court decides to be con-
stitutional the provisions Of the
Indian appropriation for 1885. max
ing an Indian reservation wholly
within the State. and making such In.
dams subiect to be tried in the same
courts, and subject to the same penal
ties as other persons; and also decides
that the United States Courts have juris-
diction to try and punish an Indian be-
longing to an Indian tribe, for commit
ting murder upon another Indian of the
same tribe, both sustaining the same
tribIl relations, when the crime is COM
mitted upon an Indian reservation set
apart for the tribe to which they belong.