Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-03-05
REAssEssmENr OF TAXES.

-
Charles Gildea, ex-member of the State Board
of Equalization, said that he desired to make q
correction of statement made in his evidence
on a previous occasion He had stated that in
levying the taxes ON the railroad company they
hao taken into consideration the earnings OF
the Oakland ferry. He had since been informed
by the Secretary of the Board, and on authority
that he believed to be the best, that the ferries
were owned by a private corporation.
The Chairman then called upon ex-senator
Cross for such further statement as he desired
to make.
Mr. Cross said: Mr.. Chairman, I am exceed
ingly sorry that there are not more members OF
the committee present. consider 1t a strange
thing thai when so important matter IS before
your committee that gentlemen representing the
other side the Attorney General, Controller and
others-do not even grace the committee with
wished to introduce little testimony which
would take but brief time, and have had the
matter put in the form of atiidavits, which can
read in few moments, and which are directly
to the point, and the facts are all gotten from
public records, which any person can see, SO
that there is no danger and can be no question
but that they are correct.
Mr.. Cross then read an affidavit from G. l..
Lansing, Secretary of the Southern Pacific Com
pany, that from 1856 to 1888, inclusive, that COM
pany had paid for tate and county taxes $780,
900 more than it would have paid had the prop.
erty on which taxes were so paid been assessed
and taxed like The property OF individuals,
where deductions are made on account OF mort
cages.
H.
of the Central Pacific Railroad Company, that
that company had paid, from 1880 to 1888, $780,
600 more than it would have paid under those
circumstances.
Another affidavit from J. L. willcott. Secre-
tary of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company.
that his company had during the latter period
paid $3.50, 900 more than it would have paid had
it been assessed and taxed like the property of
individuals
Mr.. Cross next read an affidavit from Colonel
Creed Raymond, giving full history of the
stipulatons made in the railroad tax cases,
which entirely upset the charges that the cases
in the Courts had been delayed by the railroad
company.
All Of the affdavits were filed with the COM
mittee
Mr.. Cross then continued his argument, and
among other things said:
Now, Mr.. Chairman unsatisfactory as you
will all realize that il must be for me to argue
this case before so few of the committee. still
believe that whenever anything is right and
once gets started it will roll until it reaches
brief. because l know how much work there is
for the Assembly to do and how important a
part of that work the members OF this COM
mittee perform. If any person, natural
with in the meter of taxation he has
right to go to the Courts and have the
question of whether he has been properly
assessed and taxed determined. If there
denied the privileges OF this Government,
which are accorded to everybody else. When
the Courts have decided that matter, we must
either say that the Courts are right or we must
assume hat we are better prepared to deter
mine the matter at issue than are the Courts,
which we have established for the purpose of
determining that question. Now the great con-
tention OF these railroad companies, as under
stand it, from the very first of the trouble about
these troublesome questions. has been that
they had right to be assessed upon the same
basis as other people that the same ratio upon
which other people paid taxes was the ratio
upon which they had a right 10 be taxed also {;
and that because the Constitution of the State
provides that all other people who own real
estate in the State of California, when it comes
to assessment time, may deduct the value of
any mortgages upon the property, and be as
sessed only for the value of the balance of the
property that because that right is denied to
the owners of railroad property. therefore rail-
road properties are not assessed upon the same
basis as are other people. Now, then, If they
have such contention, do not care TO argue
to any man who will not Immediately admit
that if there are mortgages upon their property,
that they are not assessed upon the same basis
or ratio as are other people. have no time to
waste upon man who does not understand
and acknowledge that as proper statement OF
the case.
Now two members of the com mittee have con e
in since read the evidence which proposed TO
furnish here tonight. That evidence shows in
the plainest and clearest and undoubtable
terms that the Central and Southern Pacific
Railroad Companies in the State OF California
have, since the adoption of the new Constitu-
ton, paid such an amount of taxes as that il
their mortgages had been deducted the same as
other peoples mortgages have been during ali
that time from the assessed valuation of their
property, they have paid more than 81 500, 600 in
excess of their share of taxes. Now do not
wish to criticise anybody improperly. but, il
that is the fact-and the evidence is here and
uncontradicted and every fact recited appears
in public record, because their mortg ges are
spread upon the record and the amount for
which they are assessed is spread upon the
records and the amount of taxes which they
have paid is spread upon the records-I take it
for granted that il it is right for other land
and real estate owners TO have their mort
cages deducted, then it is right sor the
railroad companies to have their mortgages
deducted. Now what man, knowing these
tacts-a man may not know these facts, and
form his opinion without them-but if he knows
the facts and then makes up his opinion, his
judgment corrected by knowledge-for judg-
ment without knowledge of the facts ne er can
be correct what man having these facts efore
him can sit down as legislator of the S.dte IF
California and in good faith say " will give
my vote and my influence, after these people
have paid Sl,750,000 more than their share of
taS es, 10 levy a further tax upon them for that
very same period for which they have paid
such excess"
Now have something more to say. tax
which is not legally assessed and levied is, in
law no valid tax, and being no valid tax never
can be delinquent as tax There may be
something spread upon the record which looks
like an assessment and looks like n levy but if
it Is not valid act, then there can be no de-
linouency on these cases. So that while the
Controller of the State sends to the Assembly
certain report showing certain amount of
del nlueDt taxes as due from these people the
Court has said that they are not due; and there
mas not been snit brought since the new Con-
stitutjon was adopted, in any Court, but that has
been decided in favor of the defendants. Take
the Court of Judge Leavy. Judge Leavy was
appointed a Judge by Governor Stoneman,
especially because he was known to be man
whose feelings were against the Central and
Southern Pacific Railroad Comoany That was
the main tact which entered into his Qnr0iDt.
ment and yet even he, when these methods of
assessment and taxation were brought before
him, had TO decide that the methods were ille-
gal and the assessments not valid. Every case
which has gone to the Courts under these
methods o. attempting to proceed, every case
IL has been decided that the methods
are Illegal and invalid methods. And how eau
a man. against the Superior Courts of the State,
against the Supreme Court of the State, against
the Circuit Court of the United States, against
the United States Supreme Court when they
have all decided one way, without break in
the whole line of decisions, stand up against all
those Courts and say that those Courts are mis-
taken. Now II the methods pursued are Illegal
and are invalid, what is there in q bill that
simply provides that you will go at il and do
the same thing over and by the same methods
What can result from it, Only one thing, and
that Is another string of law suits to cost the
State and the railroad company large sum of
money without any body deriving any possible
advantage or benefit from 1t. Now the evidence
in these cases viii show. and show beyond dis.
tending upon this line all the time.
Now, / want to call your attention TO another
thing. There has been for long time in my
paity-the Democratic party-a disposition 10
cast censu upon the late ney-General
Marshall. He has been publicly denounced he
has been privately denounced. large portion
of this investigation has been directed to the
proposition OF showing that Attorney-G General
Marshall signed certain stipulations which he
ought not 10 have signed that those stipula-
tons contained certain matters which they
ought not to have contained. take 1t that
there is not a member of this committee who as
not had some experience in tax cases. What is
necessary TO make valid assessment OF taxes
so that man is bound to pay the taxes? You
have got to comply with the law for the assess
ment and levy of taxes. You cannot sssess and
levy taxes outside of the law. You must proceed
in compliance with the law. Now what is the
great fault that is found with Attorney General
Marshall and with Judge Sawyer as to the find
ings that were signed as the result of stipula-
tions signed by Mr.. Marshall? 1t is this that
in the findings in all these cases was finding
that the Board of Equalization had assessed the
properties named, and in accordance with the
provisions of Section 3665 of the Political G de
Now the Board Of Equalization had no guide
but that law. They had TO go by that law
They were sworn TO obey the law. If they did
not obey the law then they were not acting
within the law, and that is the law as laid down
for them by the Legislature. and which i will
denominate The Fiicher BILL, a bill proposed
by the Controller of State and adopted largely
at his suggestion. There were two things 70 do.
kither the Court had to find that the Board of
| Equalization had complied with the provi-
| sions of that law in making the assessment,
or had 10 End ri hat hod ,at