The record-union., 1893-08-16
COLUSA And GLENN.
The State Beard Of Equalization Gives
Them a Hearing.
Each Presents Its Reasons Why the
Most of the Railroad Taxes
Should Come to 1t.

the subject of the apportionment of the
reassessment of the railroads for the
years between 1888 and 1856, when the
assessment was improperly levied.
Glenn county has 1870 miles of railroad
within her borders, while Colusa has only
1921 miles, The railroad company paid
the face value of the taxes assessed to it
for 1880, 1881 and 1882 to Colusa County,
OF which Glenn County was then part,
and which amounted to a larger sum
than they will under the reassessment,
so that an allowance or rebate will prob
ably have to be made to the company for
those years.
Colusa County claims that as Glenn
County was not in existence at that time,
and this is an assessment for those years,
the amount of taxes reassessed for should
come to her alone.
Glenn denies this and claims that as
her people would have benefited by these
taxes if they had remained in Colusa
County, and as they were taxed more
heavily while they did so remain by rea-
son of the railroad taxes not being paid,
they should now have their share, espe-
cially as they have more miles of railroad
than Colusa has.
II. NJ. Albery, appearing for Colusa
history of the Glenn County Act and the
division of the county. He said the Act
was different from the Acts dividing the
other counties in that it made no pro-
vision for the division of property, the
other Acts providing for such division ac-
cording TO the Constitution.
On the same day. he said. that the reas-
sessment law was approved there was
also passed transfer Act, which is the
only one relating to COlusa County and
transferring certain property TO Glenn
County, which should be full settlement
of all claims against Colusa.
He quoted from the reassessment Act
with regard to the assessment for each
separate year at the same rate that it was
before assessed at. He argued that the
reassessment, when made, would stand
as If ii had been made at the time when
the original assessments were made Ii
would then be an asset of Colusa County,
for which the railroad company was at
that time liable.
If that be conceded, he claimed, it be-
longed to Colusa County, and that de-
cisions and authorities concurred on the
point that in case of division of muni-
cipality the debts were to be settled by
both parties, and therefore there was an
implied community of property on hand.
There is no case where the question has
leen directly decided, but the case of Los
Angeles County VS.. Orange County
touches it nearly.
He quoted from the case to prove his
position. While the division of the county
was being consummated Los Angeles
County built bridge costing SlI, 900 on
the territory of Orange, and the CommiS-
sioners thought that Orange County in
equity ought to repay Los Angeles
County. The courts, however, decided
differently.
In response to a question by Mr.
Beamer, he conceded that the Just pro-
portion OF the road and school district
funds would tall To the portion of Glenn.
He read portion of the bill introduced in
the last Legislature. providing that Glenn
County should receive its share OF any
back taxes, but which was not passed.
while the transfer Act was passed, and
stated that when the division was made
the Glenn County men said all they asked
was the land in the county.
In answer to Mr.. Morehouse he said
that if Colusa County had before this col
lected her tax, and 1t was in excess of the
reassessment, she would have to pay it
back.
GLENN HAS HER DAY.
J. I. Harrington, representing Glenn
County, replied, saying that it is imma-
terial whether Glenn County had a right
to the division of property. He was will
ing to cOncede that she had not The
question that solely arises is the duty Of
X
age to the counties. He claimed that the
law commands the distribution to the
counties as they now exist. 1t does not
go back to former conditions, but stands
as new assessment. The Supreme
Court has decided that an assessment
which is invalid is no assessment. The
original assessments of railroad property
have been declared invalid, therefore the
reassessment is a new one. The old
assessments are only referred to in the
reasseSsment law for the purpose OF fix
ing the rate. The law obliges the board
TO appOrtion the assessments to the coun-
ties as they now exist.
He claimed that the people of Glenn
County, on account OF the failure of the
railroad company to pay its taxes, had
TO be taxed TO make up the deficiency.
Suppose Colusa County had been by the
last Legislature merged into Glenn
ana ceased to be a county. Would it be
declared that because Glenn County did
not exist in lSS0-lSS5 and there was no
Colusa County now, that Glenn County
was entitled to no apportionment?
This reaSsessment is a new assessment
under many decisions, and the old matter
cannot be incorporated in it.
Mr.. Morehouse asked If Mr.. Harring-
ton had found anything in the bill that
was not in accordance with the Constitu-
tion and was answered that he had not
examined the subject. He thought the
board must be more familiar with it than
he was.
In answer to a question by Mr.. Colgan.
he stated that he thought Glenn County
should not make a rebate OF the excess
received over the present assessment if
an apportionment Were made to her.
Colusa County had nothing to lose; the
people of both COlusa and Glenn had
equally benefited by the payments He
admitted that, as matter OF equity, if
the county receives benefit it should
also help repay u deficiency.
The transfer Act, he admitted, made a
final settlement between the counties,
but Glenn asks nothing now from Co
lusa. Without the reassessment Act, Co.
lusa would have gone on forever without
receiving these taxes, but the Legislature
had by its action given this money to
both Glenn and Colusa and both should
benefit by its action.
If the whole State were consolidated
into one county, the taxes would be paid
to one county, but would be used for the
benent of all the people. He wished to
see It reversed and the amount that would
have been due Colusa distributed to her
and Glenn.
Mr.. Albery argued that as it was
termed reassessment, its settlement
went back TO the years of the original as
sessment, and TO the state of things and
counties then existing. the law made
no provision for the new counties, and as
it was silent upon that point, the old
county was entitled to the eapportionment.
/ + the mileage in the present limits of
Glenn County were less at any time
than now, how was the board going to
equaiiZe the matter except by making an
apportionment in entirety to Colusa
County?
The Attorney General, he said, had
fagfy f,, f.,h