The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1895-01-07

taxes from other individuals.
The constitution provides that after the State
Board of Equalization has made the assess.
ment of the franchise. roadway rOadbed. rails
and rolling stock at their actual value, the same
shall be apportioned to the counties In proper
tlon 10 the mileage of the different counties. Ii
is the value Of the properly after it has been
assessed that Is TO be apportioned TO the several
counties. There is no apportionment to the
counties II the property itself or OF any parIicu-
lar part OF that property The
nature Of the property required 10 be assessed
by the state Board of Equalization show that
the property itself is incapable of being appor-
iiOned, and that there could be no description
entered upon the books which could serve as
the basis of a sale or conveyance.
Even If the roadway within the county could
be described there could be no apportionment
10 the several counties of the franchise or OF
the rolling stock which could serve as a de-
seripton or be capable OF transfer. The fran
chse is a unit, and The rolling stock has no par
ticuar status in any county, but In connection
with the roadway and roadbed are essential Tor
the enjoyment Of the franchise, while the
whole-tne franchise, roadway, rOadbed. rails
and rolling stock-conStltute an entirety In
capable of division. If the taxes OF any county
that are levied against The railroad upon the
apporllonment by the State Board of EquallZa-
tion are delinquent, there is no description OF
property within that county which can De ad-
vertised into certificate of sale and d. ed.
Even II the roadway and roadbed within The
several counties could be made the subject OF
sale for delinquent taxes the functions OF each
tax collector would be limited TO his own
county, and the purchasers In the different
counties might not be the same
These and other considerations that might
be presented make 1t manifest that the cOnsti-
tuition itself, by reason of The manner in which
1t has provided for the assessment Of the prop
eTtY of he railroads Oprr ted in more Than one
county, has made the laws which are appro-
pirate for the collection of delinquent taxes
upon properly generally inappcable 10 these
railroads, and that, inasmuch as they require
legislation upon that subject peculiar o them
selves the law enacted for them IS a general
and not special law.
The appellant has cited In support of this
People VS.. the Central Pacific Railroad Com
dany. In that case the court held that, whether
the complaint was to be regarded as an ordi-
nary complaint in civil action TO recover
money upon a statutory obligation or as COM
plant under section 3770 OF the Political Code,
IL was insufficient, and that the demurrer to the
complaint upon the ground that Ii did not state
facts sufficient TO constitute cause of action
should have been sustained. The court also
held that a statutory provision for a special
form OF complaint In an action 10 recover delin-
quent taxes contravenes the constitutional pro-
htbition against passing special laws regulating
practice in courts of JUSTICE bur, as the COM
plant IN the present case Is not prepared in
that form. that question is not presented,
The collection of taxes is not the mere col
lection OF debt, but is The sovereign act OF
the State, TO be xercised as may be prescribed
by the Legislature. Whether The tax is col
lected by an action In court or by a summary
sale by the Tax Collector is immaterial. The
S tate through the Legislature can avail Itself
OfThe judicial power as a means by which 1t
III collect The tax and in such proceedings 1t
may prescribe such procedure as may best
avail for the purpose, irrespective Of the mode
Of procedure provided for The determination OF
controversies between individuals. Although
the tax is an obligation from the citizen TO the
State, it is not of the same character of 0bliga-
ton as exists between ctizens, and for the
purpose of lis collection the State is not limited
TO the same mode nor 10 the same procedure
which Is prescribed for Individuals in the col
lection of obligations between themselves.
The second ground on which the railroad
objected to the assessment was that in the
assessment the Federal franchise was in
cluded. The company originally received
from the State of California franchise to
the State and subsequently it received
from the United States franchise to con-
struct and operate railroad from the
Pacific Ocean eastward. and the railroad
contends that the franchise from the
State was merged into that received from
the United States.
The railroad in making this contention
failed to produce any authority which
holds that the union of the two franchises
in the same corporation would operate as
merger of the State franchise.
Touching this point the court said:
A license or the right to exercise privilege
which is derived from other authority Is not
necessarily destroyed or merged by procuring
a similar license or right from another author
ity any more than is title to real estate
merged by buying conflicting title The Su-
pTeme Court OF the United States In discussing
the right TO assess the Federal franchise said:
This important grant though In part collateral
to was independent of that made to the CON-
pany By the State of California
It must be conceded that the State franchise
is independent of the Federal franchise to the
extent that it is capable of being revoked by
the State.
II the United States should for any cause re-
call the franchise which 1t has conferred upon
the appellant the franchise received by it from
the State OF California would still remain and
enable 1t TO operate Its road. The right TO
operate the road is vauablr whether the road
is at present operated under the exercise OF
this right or not. The franchise from the
State is still a Wild existing right and Is
property which is susceptible of valuation
although its value VIII depend upon a variety
OF circumstances.
The assessment In the present case is upon
the franchise, roadway, 70 dbed, rails and roll.
ing stock and the court finds in making its
assessment and valuation therefor OF said de.
PENDANTS franchise said Board of Equalization
did not include, assess or value any franchise or
corporate power held or exercised by the rail-
road under any aci OF Congress.
We have seen that the State franchise is
properly susceptible of valuation, and as the
State Board OF Equalization is directed to
assess the franchise OF the appellant it must be
assumed, In the absence of any other evidence
than the assessment itself. that the board has
acted upon property within Its Jurisdiction
rather than upon property which it has no
power to include ln the assessment.
The court ruled that if. as in the present
case, the railroad held two franchises, one
OF which could be sed and the other
could not. it must be held that the fran
oh xuhT 81 -,