Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-05-12

! these is brought by Attonley-G eneral Mar
/ shall; the other by D. NJ. nelmas. who is
| employed by State Controller Dunn. The
cases in the Supreme Court OF the United
States are for the taxes of 1881. 1852 and
1888. The public has
DEEN LED TO BELIEVE
| That the sum involved is vastly mora than
it really is. The taxes have all been Maid
| except about $4,000, rendered TO -eVeraI
counties by the railroad companies. and
refused. So, then, all that is involved in
the decision OF the Supreme Court of
the United States. and which was
published IN the RECORD UNION YES
terday. and IS treated exhaustiyeIv
IN our editorial columns this morning,
is per cent. for delinquency. a part of the
10 per cent. claimed for attorneys fees and
the per cent. per month interest claimed.
As to the latter 'cinch theSupremeCourt
of this State has decided that it is not a
valid claim, as interest does not run upon
taxes except when the property is concealed
and cannot be found. So that the decision
of the Supreme Court of the United States
really affects only about $50. $50 most of
which is for attorneys fees.
The Post in its review OF the case saws
:" For thetwo succeeding years the company
has paid almost two-thiris of the amonnt
claimed, larger tax than has ever been
paid by any railroad in the United States or
that has ever been assessed against anv
railroad. The cases involving the balance
have not yet gone to the Supreme Court"
THE RAILROADS HAVE PAID
In county and State taxes in the six wears
of this litigation over s., 900 coo, and when
the taxes, for 1856 are paid, the sum will
be increased by $500, 600, so that the COM
panies have paid annually about 5000, 600.
Yet the cry is persistently kept up that the
raaiiroad company refuses to paw its taxes
The Supreme Court of the United States
has now decided that because the State
Board of Equalization did not assess GER
tam Improvements separately, rs spe-
cliically and clearly dictated to it by The
Constitution, the assessment of the roads
operated in more than one county is in
valid That is to say, fences assessed at
$500 mile were included in the assess
ment of the roadway or roadbed. The
last Legislature provided what is known
as the
HEATH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
1t provides for an income tax of q ner
cent upon the gross annual earnings of the
company. In the collection of this tax no
expense would be incurred by the State.
and the amount wonld be fixed and def
mite This amendment is 10 be voted on
IN November next. This amendment it is
provided By an Act of the Legislature
shall extend the income-t3x plan to cover
the year 1856, so that in case the suits for the
tax OF the year 1856 fail, the income tax
could be eleyied on the gross earnings if the
amendment Is adopted. SAYS the Post on this
subject; 3" The amendment also provides
that there shall be no separate assessment
OF growing vines or fruit trees. the
object being to exempt unproductive vines
and fruit trees from taxation In this re-
spect 1t is substantially the law which sew
eral years ago was promoted and passed
through the Legislature by the Hon. Marion
Blggs, OF Butte county, which provided
that vines and fruit trees should not be sep
arateiy assessed, but should be assessed as
part of the realty. A similar provision in
the Heath amendment, coupled with
constitutional provision already in force
providing that cultivated and uncultivated
land of the same quality and similarly sit
uated shall be assessed at the same value
4 tSectlon ?, Article Kill, Constitution of
California; prevents the taxation of vines
and fruit traac