The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1895-01-07
ABOUT $65O,OOO DUE FOR 1887.

All day yesterday the Justices of the
Supreme Court sat in their high hall on
Larkin street, and all day long decisions
fell from their hands and accumulated in
a snowy pile on the long desk in the
clerks Office. Judgments affirmed and re-
versed, writs granted and refused, were
there, and when the shadows began to
gather in the lofty chamber their HonOrs,
two of whom will sit no more on the ST.
preme Bench. departed. feeling that for
that DAYS labor they could draw their SAL
aries without oppres 3ing their cOnsciences.
Few Of the decisions rendered were Of
Importance to any one save the litlgants.
but there was one judgment that will in
terest every citizen and taxpayer In the
State. The court deCreed that the assess
ment of The railroads for 1887 was lawful
and must be paid. 1t declared that the
law under which that assessment was
levied is constitutional. and remurselessly
swept away the sophistreS of the learned
counsel who pleaded the railroads case.
Mcfarland gave the only dissenting opin-
ion. The judgment will compel the rail-
road and several of its branches to pay
into the State treasury taxes and penalties
and other obligations.
The case was entitled ''The People OF
the State of California against the Central
Pacific Railroad Company"
The action was commenced to recover
the amount of taxes assessed against the
company by the State Board of Equiliza-
ton for the fiscal year ending June 80,
1883. Judge Hebbard, before whom the
case was tried in the Superior Court, de-
cided against the railroad and they ap-
pealed.
The underlying question in this appeal
was the validity of sections 366S, 1869 and
1910 of the Political Code, the railroad
contendng that the provisions of these
sections contravened the provisions of sec
tion % article ", of the constitution, and
particularly the subdivision of the section
by which the Legislature is prohibited
from passing special law for the assess
ment or collection of taxes. The railroad
contended that the sections to which it o b.
jected takes from the operation of the gen.
eral law for the collection of taxes a GER
tain class of railroads, and as they are ap-
plcable to those railroads alone they are
a special law prohibited by the constItu-
tiOn.
Judge Hebbard decided that the sections
In question we're not unconstitutional, and
in this judgment the Supreme Court sus-
tanned him.
The distinction between special and gen.
eral law" said The latter tribunal, may not
be capable of being formulated In a definition
which will be exhaustive Of the subject and ap-
plicable TO every case, and the question may be
better determined upon a consideration OF each
particular case presented for its application, By
taking into view the purpose and character of
tile law as well as the individuals upon whom
1t IS TO operate.
The Legislature, in its function OF providing
for the public welfare, must determine the char
acter of the laws which 1t will enact and, except
In so far as 1t is prohibited by the constitution,
should adapt these laws TO the condition or ne
cessities of different portions Of the State or
classes OF its citizens. The constitution does
not require that all the laws which the Legsla.
TUE shall pass shall have a uniform operation
in every part Of the State: nor does it prohibit
legislation for different classes OF citizens
The requirement that all laws of general
nature shall have a uniform operation and that
the Legislature shall not pass special laws
upon certain subjects still leaves open for
determination whether any particular statute
is a general or special law. A law which
operates only upon a class of individuals is
none the less general law If the individuals
to whom it is applicable constitute a class
which requires legislation peculiar to itself.
The court ruled that for the purpose of
collecting delinquent taxes the railroads
upon which the sections Of the code
objected TO as uncOnstitu ional are in
tended TO operate constitute a class dis.
tinctive from all other railroads as we'll as
from all other taxpayers. The constitu-
ton has itself established these railroads
into distinct class in providing a special
mode of assessment for portion of their
property as the basis upon which their
taxes are to be levied.
The court points out the unsuitahlenes
of the previous statutes for the collection
of delinquent taxes generally. Under these
laws it says that the Tax Collector is re-
quired to pursue a course which would be
entirely iDapplicable to the railroads. The
Tax Collector is required to publish de-
linquent list which must con- tain descrip-
ton of the property on which the taxes
are delinquent, and for the purpose of col.
Letting the dellnql ent taxes by sale Of the
property he is required to sell the least
quantity of the property assessed for which
a purchaser will pay the taxes and costs
ManIfestly this could not be done in the
case of railroad.
Sucn provisions are inapplicable 10 the
railroads under consideration. so far a.
concerns that portion of their property
which is assessed by the State Board o.
Equalization. The Court continues:
II must be borne in mind that only portion
OF their property, the franchise, roadway, road
bed. rails and rolling stock of railroads operated
in more han one county is thus assessed. Th,
depois, stations, shops ard buildings erected
upon the space covered by the right of way, ART
assessed by the Assessor Of the county in which