Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-05-12
The RAILROAD TAX CAsES-THE COM
PANIEs WIN, BUT THE STATE LOSES
NOTHING

THE RAILROAD TAX CASES THE COM
PANIES WIN, BUT THE STATE LOSES
NOTHING.
Il is wise rule of the Supreme Court
OF the United States that constitutional
questions will not be decided except the
way to them is cleared of all other issues
Any other rule would tend to encourage
locseness of procedure by authorities in
trusted with the administration of the
laws, since they would be tempted to in
difference regarding minor details, in con-
troyersies, in order to have constitutional
constructions made by the Supreme tri-
banal.
Nell-informed lawyers are aware of this
custom of appellate Courts, and it is there
fore surprising that eminent legal talent"
should be found expressing surprise that
the Supreme Court has sent the railroad
TAX cases off upon State issue,
solely and alone. The special counsel
for the State in the railroad tax cases Ger
tainly knew that the validity of the assess
ments was assailed, because improvements
had been assessed by the State Board of
Equalization which should have been left
10 the municipalities and counties wherein
such improvements are located. The
urih ground of defense made by the
railroad companies was chat no valid
assessment was made" and the sixth was
that the assessment was void, because it
included property the State Board had no
jurisdiction to assess" and these points the
Supreme Court maintains. How, then,
can the assumed surprise of Mr.. Delmas
Dc accounted for, when he says to a re-
porter What do they mean by assess
rnent of improvements The Supreme
court at least is clear, if Mr. Delmas is
not. 1t says:
That the State Board of Eqalization purposely
inciuded IN It's assessment and valuation the
-ences erected or the line between the railroads
and the lands adjacent to them belonging to
other pfoprietors at the rate of $500 mile is
undoubtedly true, for it is so stated in the
special findings of fact by the Circuit Court. and
mat finding must be taken to be indsputable
u IS equally true that that tribunal has no
2owSr Oh assessment, and had jurisdiction
sislply 10 assess 9" the franchise, roadway road
bed, MS and rolling stock" of the railroad
corporations which operated roads in more than
one county and that the other property of such
corporations, subject to taxation, was assessable
only IN the county, city. city and county,
own, township or district in which it is situated
N the manner prescribed by law" Such is the
mandate OF the state Constitution
Yet in the face of this judicial recital of
acts, we find the San Francisco Chronicle
declaring that the State Board did not
lax these improvements at all, and if it
mad, 1t would have made no appreciate
Inference in the assessment"
But when all this is said, and surprise is
SHOWN to be unjustiiable, 1t remains that
regret may be entertained that the consti-
iutionai questions and Federal issues were
not ruled upon in these cases. 1t is iusti-
liable TO infer, liz view of other decisions
nude, that the Supreme Court, had it
passed upon these points, in these cases,
rluld have ruled against the State, and
nave supported the position taken by the
railroad companies since, had the justices
been perfectly clear that the attitude of
The State was defensible, they would have
mad little hesitancy in so declaring, despite
the custom to avoid constitutional cues
ions, and The more so since the Courts be-
low had ruled favorably to the position of
The railroad companies.
But Mr.. Delmas, whose legal acumen
mas been so much Wanted, gives further
surprising evidence of lack of knowledge
o the law of the case when he exclaims
Ii the improvements were enormously
IS essefi, why were those assessments not
segregated from the main assessments, and
The latter held to be valid?' To the Law
mind the answer at once suggests itself
that upon the plaintiff depended that at
tainment being reached were it "A ssible ;
but the Supreme Court very clearly re-
spends with what, it would appear. the
states special attorneysshould have known
Say the Court:
The next inquiry naturally arises as TO whether
me dltferent kinds OF property assessed by the
ssate board are distinct and separate upon the
race of the assessment so that the company be-
ing thereby informed of the amount of the taxes
ieVled on each. could be held to have been in
aeianit IN not rendering Whatever sum, if any,
Was legally DUE Upon the transcript before ms
his question must be answered the negative.
IL was then incumbent upon the
plaintiff by satisfactory evidence To sensrate
LA ila, Mhsl. was illegal from that which was
legai, assuming only for the PURPOSE, of This
case, the assessment was in all other resnects
segai. anu mus impose upon the defendant the
luty OF rendering. or enable the Court 10 render
lucginent ior such amount as was Justly due.
IN thus appears that the entire blame
sor the failure of the Supreme Court to
reach Unconstitutional questions involved
Is cnargeable upon the States special at
sorneys and agents, who had not only pre-
pared the cases, but some of whom were
directly related to the whole business of
assessing the roads from the beginning,
and must be assumed to have known that
the Constitution of California provides
at land, and the improvements there
ol, shall be separately assessed and that
Che Courts of this State have decided, and
the decisions remain unchallenged, that
such improvements as fences are not parts
Of the roadway of railroads. not parts of
the franchise, and not of the road bed
There is, indeed, shade of sarcasm in the
pains the Supreme Court of the United
States takes to point out these decisions of