The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1893-04-25
FATED TO LOSE.
The San Pablo Tax Case
Argued.
HOW THE DECISION WILL GO.
Remarks of the Justices Indicate That
the Railroad Will Be Sustained
by the Court.
Special to THE MoRNINs CALL

Chitou oldteS supreme court tNlS aiter-
noon 1t was that of the People of the
State OF California. plaintiffs in error. VS..
the San Pablo and Tulare Railroad COM
pany, defendant in error Attorney General
w. ii. Ii. Hart appeared for the State and
Harvey ). Brown for the railroad.
Attorney General BART opened the case.
lie stated tersely the question involved to
be whether or not difference in the assess
ment of railroad property and other public
corporations from that of individuals was
IN violation of the fourteenth amendment to
the constitution of tile United States. He
gave various reasons why the mode dopted
by tue State of California in no way violated
Inc Federal constitution, citing many recent
decisions in the United States, among which
were the following: State of Kentucky
ralroRd-tax cases l15 United States, page
32ll; Belegax Railroad Company VS.. the
State OF Pennsylvania Q34 United States,
page 232); Home Insurance Company of
New York Q34 United States, page COG;
Pacific Express Company VS.. Seibert q42
United States, page $780,
lie also called the attention of the court
to the resolution of the Assembly of
the State of California, passed at its recent
session, request ting the United States Su-
preme Court TO hear the case on its merits.
1t was claimed by defendant in error that
1t had offered and rendered the plaintiffs
the taxes, penalties, interests and costs, and
had paid the same into the banks to the
credit of the State, and hence the writ should
be dismissed.
10 this the Attorney General for Cali
fornia replied that the stipulation in the
record submitted four cases to the United
States Supreme Court for decision and
hence the tender of the amount involved in
the San Pablo case would not prevent the
hearing of the case on its merits and that
the defendant was not entitled 10 a dis
missal. unless i: had rendered and paid the
taxes, interest. penalties and costs involved
in the four cases. Mr.. Hart also claimed
that the decision Of the Supreme Court of
the State Of California Qn So California;
did not affect the case at bar, for the decis-
Ion in the case was rendered upon a point
OF practice made in the case and one that
was not raised in the case now before this
court, and having been raised in the Circuit
Court would not be considered in the
Supreme Court of the United States.
Upon this point the court seemed to agree
with Mr.. Hart, but they we're in doub; as
TO the tender and payment. The Attorney
General also made the point that a dis
Ah4oSdl III lulS Cdot UuEuL uDl 70 DN tDaQe IN
any event, as it would have the effect Of af-
frminE The decision of the Circuit Court,
which held that the California laws. with
reference 10 the taxation of railroads, were
invalid.
The court intimated to Mr.. Hart that
this could be remeded.
The Attorney General in timated that the
tender of money to the State by the rail-
road company was made TO prevent de-
cision of the case on It's merits and was not
done in good faith
Harvey Brown virtually acknowledged
this. but said 1t made no difference whether
1t was made in good faith or not that was
not the question before the court
1t was very apparent from the questions
to Mr. Hart that the majority of the JUS
tices were Of the opinion that the case
virtually ended with the tender of the
money TO the State. Justice Gray gave this
rs his opinion. Justice jackson seemed to
agree with the Attorney General that there
were four cases instead of one and that all
Onght to have been paid; that there we're
practically four cases involved in the rec
ord. There was distinction, he said.
between this and the cases that were dis
missed.
Justice Field suggested that II the wri:
was dismissed it could be done in such
manner as not to affirm the Judgment Of
the lower court.
Justice Brewer suggested tnat tho stipu-
lation in the record would warrant the
setting aside Of the judgments against the
State In the court below in the event of the
dismissal of the writ of error in this case.
The United States Supreme Court had
held many tim es that 1t would not take up
cases after they had been settled, aud it is
altogether proba bic that the decision of the
court in the case argued to-day will be in
favor Of the railroad as against the people
of California. Attorney-General Hart is
rather expecting this result. Judge Harvey
Brown appears to be pretty well satisfied
with the situation. He will leave Wash
inEton tomorrow. Attorney General Bart
will go to New York tomorrow, but will
return to Washington nest Monday 10 take
up the murder cases of McNuliy and F. o.
Vincent, plaintiffs in error, versus tile
State Of California.
Atlorney-General Olney made his first
appearance in the Supreme Court to-day.
The occasion that called him was the pres
entation of the resolutions recently adopted
by members of the bar upon the death of
the late justice Lamar. There was an un-
the public. 0lney spoke asily and grace
fully. Chief Justice Fuller responded to
the request to spread the resolutions upon
the records. and in few words paid an
earnest tribute to the dead
The court transacted great deal of im-
portant business to-day. Among other
matters. IL affirmed the judgment of the
United States Circuit Court for the State
IF oelf -,
of habeas corpus in the case of Albert
Frederick, now undergoing sentence of
twenty years imprisonment for murder In
the second degree.
Another case presenting unusual novel
features was decided, Justice Gray deliver
iag the opinion. 1t was entitled the North
ern Pacific Railroad Company versus c. J.
Brooks & CO. ct al, defendants, including a
number OF saloon-keepers and the Board of
Commissioners of Kittitas County, Wash.
The railroad comrany brought suit to abate
the saloons maintained by the defendants
as nuisances and to prevent the Commits
sioners of the county from renewing the
licenses to them. The ground upon which
the complaint was based was that the en-
ployes OF the company, who must neces-
sarily use dynamite and steam in the con-
strnction of the compaIy's railroad line
through Klttitas County. were Induced by
the presence of the defendants saloons
along tie line of work to become untitled
for the safe use of these instrumeutalites,
and thereby caused loss to the corporation
by delay in finishing the work. The State
courts ruled against the company and the
latter appealed from the judgment of the
Supreme Court Of the Territory of Wash
ington TO the Supreme Court of the United
States. Justice Gray. however. for that
court, affirmed the judgment of the Terri
torial Supreme Court. stating that upon
none OF the grounds advanced by counsel
for appellant could 1t maintain an action
and secure the relief sought.
The South Carolina tax cases were also
passed upon, the opinion being delivered by
Chief Justice Fuller. 1t came up on the