The record-union., 1893-08-08
RAILROAD REASSESSMENTS
Finally Fixed at Meeting of the
State Board of Equalization.
Assessments Made-Those for 1856
and 1887 Deferred for
Another Year.

Another Year.
Tho State Board of Equalization did not
conclude its session until very late hour
last night. Yesterday was the last day in
which the board could legally act in the
matter of fixing the assessments OF rail-
road companies for the year, and it was
found necessary to remain in session up
to the last moment in order to complete
its task.
During the day Attorney-General Hart
submitted an opinion to the board regard
ing what he deemed to be Its duty in the
matter of reassessing delinquent railroad
taxes for certain years. The opinion is as
follows:
GENERAL HARRIS OPINION.
To the State Board Of Equalization of
the State of CdEifor7aia In response to
your inquiries L beg leave to state:
have carefully considered the provisions
of Chapter 2O7 OF the statutes of 1898, ap-
proved March 23d, entitled IAN Act in
relation to reassessment of property, the
equalization of the same and the collec-
ton of taxes thereon in cases where
former assessment made since 1879 is il
legal or invalid, or where the proceedings
for the collection Of such taxes have been
Intellectual by reason of error, Irregular
ity or invalidity and [wherel such taxes
have not been paid.'
The above constitutes the title of the
Act, and the word where in brackets is
my own language for the purpose OF MAX
ing definite what | consider TO have been
the intention of the Legislature in adopt
ing such title.
You will notice that the purview and
substance of this title is to reassess prop
art n nFs.h hoo
ment, and to lay the foundation for the
reassessment OF property and collection
OF taxes where they have not been COL
Iected, and embraces two provisions:
flrst-Where tax ''is illegal or invalid
and where such taxes have not
been paid"
Second-''Where the proceedings for
the collection of taxes have been inef-
1ectual by reason of error, irregularity or
lnvalidity, and where such taxes have
not been paid" Hence, under the title
of this Act, If you find that the tax for
any year has been paid, then you have
no right, within the meaning of the title
to reassess for that year, because it is
only IN such cases where the taxes have
not been paid that you are to reassess
within the meaning of the title.
The Act, Section l, provides that ''every
assessment OF property made after the
year 1879 which is':
First-"Invalid, orr
Second-"May hereafter be adjudged to
be Qnvalld) by reason of any illegaliUv,
lnyalldlty or irregularity, declared or ex-
lsting, in the assessment of such property
or IN the mode provided for the assess
ment thereof, shall be remade," etc.
You will notice from this quotation
which Is all that is necessary to be quoted
from Section l, that the title of the 4 ct is
much broader than the Act itself, in this.
that the Act itself provides for reassess-
ment only IN cases where the assessment
Is invalid or may hereafter be adjudged
to be invalid by reason of any illegality,
lnValldlty or lrregularity." This Illegal
lty, .nvalidity or irregularity is to be
ascertained in two ways:
Firstly 1t having been so declared
by a court OF competent jurisdiction, or
Second-Where it actually exists within
the knowledge of this board as a fact
from It's knowledge of an assessment
on VIII thus see that the section leaves
out and does not make any provision
whatever IN cases where the proceedings
Tor the collection of such tax have been
Intellectual, etc. In other words, it an
pears TO me that the title of this Act was
drawn broad enough to cover every case
against the railroads where they had
failed TO pay the full amount OF their
taxes and with that view, but fair in
depreciation OF the Act itself shows that
1t was drawn in such a manner as to
eliminate from Its provision the re-
assessment cases where the proceedings
Tor the collection of such taxes have been
Intellectual.
The title and the Act are not contra
dlctory, but the title covers not only what
IS included in the act but a provision
that is not included in the Act, i. e., cases
Where the proceedings for the collection
OF such taxes have been Intellectual, etc,
1 have HOlht al in !,
a court has declared the assessment of
any year or years to be invalid that You
have right to make a reassessment for
such years.
Second-That you have a right to make
a reassessment where, from your
own knowledge, you know that
an inyalidity exists, although not
declared by court; provided, how
ever, that in making such reas-
sessment you run the risk of the rail-
road company making a defense to the
payment of the taxes on the ground that
the invalidity did not exist That is to
say, by your declaring an invalidity does
exist VIII not estop the railroad from
showing that an invalidity did not exist
III.
AS to the taxes of 1887 tit was recently
decided by the Superior Court of the city
and county of San Francisco, Judge Heb
bard, in which judgment was recovered
by the people for all the State and county
taxes involved in this year and which
cases are now upon appeal in the Su-
preme Court OF this State), you have no
right TO reasseSs for that year even if Won
are OF the opinion that the assessment is
invalid, for the reason that the court has
declared the assessment to be valid, and
hence that decision estops you from de-
termlning its invalidity until final de-
cision of the Supreme Court, and hence
IN making reassessment it is my iudg-
ment that you must eliminate and cannot
consider the reasSessment of taxes for
the year 1887.
In reference to the taxes of 1856. it ap-
pears from the decision of the Supreme
Court, SD California, page 1893. and from
the syllabus of that case at page 394, that
the scheme for the reassessment and COL
lection of taxes on railroads situated in
more than one county, prescribed by GER
tain sections, 3665 ana 3679 OF the Political
Code, is unconstitutional, as being special
legislation not authorized by Section 25 of
Article ~. of the Constitution II has
always been contended by the attorneys
Tor the railroad companies, and especially
upon the trial of the railroad tax cases of
1881, that the decision of the court went
as far as the syllabus just quoted, whereas
II IS contended upon my part that the
only thing decided in that case was that
the complaints were not sufficient, and
that the Supreme Court only held the
mode OF collection as presented by the