Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1893-01-10
THOSE BANK TAXES.
Full Text of Justice Brewers Opinion
in the Matter Of the Test Cases
from Albuquerque.

Solicitor-General Bartlett to- day re-
ceived from Washington, with the COM
pliments Of Mr.. Justice Brewer, copy
of the U. S. Supreme court oplLlon, re-
Gently announced, wherein the validity of
the New Mexico statute relative to taxing
banking shares is upheld. The statement
of facts has already been given the pub
lie in these columns, hence the full opin-
ion is of general interest. It is as fol-
lows:
"The decree dismissing the original and
supplemental bills must be sustained. AS
to the tax of 1888, the case stands upon
the allegation that plaintiffs property
was originally assessed at its full value,
while other property was assessed
70 per cent. thereof; that it
appealed to the board of equalization for
a reduction; and that such tribunal re-
duced the valuation, but only to 95 in
stead of 70 per cent. 1t would seem that
the mere statement of this was sufficient.
The law of New Mexico requires proper
ty to be assessed at its cash value. Con-
fessedly, this plaintiffs property was as
sessed at Is per cent. below that value.
Surely, upon tie mere fact that other
property happened to be assessed at 80
per cent. below the value, when this did
not come from any design or systematic
effort on the part of the county officials,
and when the plaintiff has had a hearing
as to the correct valuation, on appeal be-
fore the board of equalization, the prop
er tribunal for review, it cannot be that it
can como into court of equity for an
injunction, or have that decision of the
board of equalization reviewed in this
collateral way" STANLEY v. Supervisors of
Albany, 12l U. S. $3.50
"With respect to the taxes of 1889, there
was no payment or tender of payment OF
any amount Plaintiff seeks to avoid the
necessity therefor by alleging that it is
to separate the legal from the
illegal portions of the taxes; an allega-
ton which is manifestly untrue, in view of
r. fat thai. it had no difficulty in max
ing the separation in the taxes of 1883,
the assessment for which was made in
a similar way; and in view of the further
fact that it must have known what prop
ClUJ IL ldu WHlSh was SuDJCCu W IuAdUlOu
as well as it's value, and, therefore, the
rate of taxation being fixed by law, it
could, of course, have known what amount
was undoubtedly due. The rule in re-
spect to this matter is perfectly we'll
settled in this court. In State Railroad
Tax Cases (92 U. S. SIS, GIG it was fully
considered. In that case it was said by
Mr.. Justice Miller, speaking for the court:
1T is profitable thing for corporations
or individuals whose taxes are very large
to obtain preliminary injunction as to
all their taxes, contest the case through
several years. litigation, and when in the
end it is found that but small part of
the tax should be permanently enjoined,
submit to pay the balance. This is not
equity. 1t is in direct violation of the
first principles of equity jurisdiction.
It is not sufficient to say in the bill that
they are ready and willing to pay what
ever may be found due. They must first
pay what is conceded to be due, or what
can be seen to be due on the face of the
bill, or be shown by affidavits, whether
or not, before the preliminary
injunction should be granted. The state
is not to be thus tied up as to that of
which there is no contest, by Jumping it
with that which is really contested. If
The proper officer refuses to receive a
part of the tax, it must be rendered, and
rendered without the condition annexed
If receipt in full for all the taxes as
,essed.' Many other cases to like effect |
night be cited.
'The decree will be affirmed"