The record-union., 1894-01-17
RAILROAD BACK TAXES.
San Bernardino Dissatisfied With
Controller CoIgan.
The Officials Claim That the Taxes
Should be Paid Into Their
County Treasury.

About the middle of December Control
ler Colgan received letter from @. j.
Bolton, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
of San Bernardino County, stating that
it had been rumored that the back taxes
of the Southern Pacific Company were to
be divided between Riverside and San
Bernardino Counties in proportion to
their present assessments.
He said the Supervisors of his county
thought that the money should be all
paid to the Treasurer of that county and
left for final adjustment by the Commits
sioners appointed by the Governor and
the two counties and he asked to be in
formed what was to be done.
Controller Colgan, in reply, stated that
the settlement with the company for the
back taxes of 1880 to 1885 would be made
on the basis of the mileage of the road in
the counties of San Diego and San Ber-
nardino as they existed before division,
and whatever amount was received
would be divided between the counties
of San Diego, San BernardinO and River
side in proportion 10 the apportionment
OF mileage by the State Board of Equali-
Zation.
ne LAS JuSI IeC6lF6u d COlll-
muncation from District Attorney Oster
of San Bernardino County, saying that
the taxes accrued before the division of
the county and should be paid directly to
the county and the apportionment be-
tween Riverside and San Bernardino
should be made by the commission ap-
pointed by the Governor and the two
counties.
This commission, be says, is now in
existence and under the Act creating
Riverside County the Legislature author
lied it to adjust all tinaDcial interests be-
tween the two counties. The taxes, he
claims, were earned before Riverside
County came into existence and belong
to San Bernardino, subject TO apportion-
ment, as all other property of that county
is, sby the commission, and an appor-
tionment by mileage would not be in ac
cordance with the Act erecting Riverside.
The board, therefore, protests against the
proposed division.
Controller Colgan replies that the mat
ter of apportioning the railway aSeess-
nlents among the newly erected counties
under the Re-asseSsment Act of 1893 was
fully discussed before the State Board OF
Equalization prior to the boards making
the assessment and apportioning it. In
the cases OF the counties OF Colusa and
Glenn, attorneys appeared for each
county and the case was ably argued.
The board secured the opinion of the
Attorney and it was to the effect
that the newly organized counties must
be recognized in the apportionment and
tho board followed his opinion.
The Controller has no discretion in the
matter of collecting and apportloning
those taxes, as the law IS very plain aud
admits of no doubt. Section 1856 of the
Political Code governs the matter en-
tirely, and the last clause constitutes the
Controllers authority, as follows:
1.-THE two duplicates constitute the war
rant for the Controller to collect the State
and county, and city and county taxes
levied upon such property assessed by
the board and the amount of the appor-
tionment of the assessment to each
county, and city and county, respect
ively."
The letter ends by saying. II shall pro-
ceed as indicated in my letter OF Deem
ber 9th last, unless enjoined from SO
doing by the courts"
af40 Il