The herald., 1896-08-20
The Atlantic and Pacific Loses
q Suit
OVER $5O,OOO WAS INVOLVED
A Decision OF q Great Deal OF Local In.
terest
Reinhart but Judge HcKenna Over
ruled the Point

Unofficial advices have been received
at the federal building announcing that
Judge McKenna has at San Francisco
rendered q decision in the case of ]. W.
Reinhart, receiver, VS.. ]. r. Mcdonald,
ex-state treasurer, and the state af Cal
ifornia.
The state board of equalization in 1894
assessed the rolling stock and other prop
erty of the Atlantic and Pacific railroad
located in this county, from the Need
les. The taxes upon this property was
stated to be $561S0.
Receiver Reinhart protested against
paying the money, alleging that it was
double taxation, as these taxes had al
| ready been paid in New Mexico. En-
Treasurer Mcdonald broughA suit upon
behalf of the state. Judge McKenna
holds in the excerpt of his decision which
has reached here, that:
The view that this is suit against
the state is presented by the attorney
general with great strength and plaus-
ibility, but even if the contention be
true l think il is a fair deduction from
the authorities as from the principle
that the right of suit against the treas
urer of the state being given it may be
brought in tie federal courts when
other grounds of jurisdiction exist as
they do in this case. | do not think it
necessary to review the cases; they are
very numerous and the counsel has
cited all of them. The claim of exempt
ion from taxation of the property de-
scribed is based on the following
grounds:
,First-That the property is engaged
IN interstate commerce.
Second-That its situs is in New Mex
leo. where taxes on it have been paid.
Third-That the Atlantic and Pacific
railroad is not the owner of the railroad,
and under the constitution of the state
of California the rolling stock can only
be assessed to the owner of the railroad.
The first two grounds are answered
by the cases of Marye VS.. Baltimore and
Ohio railroad, 127 L. S. III, and Pullman
Car company VS.. Pennsylvania. The
constitution of the state of California
is as follows:
Section l, article XIII. All property
of the state, not exempt under the laws
of the United States, shall be taxed in
proportion to its value, to be ascertained
as provided by law. The word property,
as used in this article and section, is
hereby declared to include moneys, cred
its, bonds, stocks. dues, franchises and
all matters and things real personal and
mixed capable of private ownership
Section 10, article Mi. The franchise
roadway, roadbed. rails and rolling
stock of all railroads operating in more
than one county in this state shall be
assessed by the state board of equaliza-
tion al their actual value, and the same
shall be apportioned to the counties
cities and counties, cities. towns. town
ships and districts in which such rail-
roads are located, in proportion to the
number of miles of railway laid in such
counties, cities. &
These provisions seem to need no in
depreciation. The first section is SO COM
prehensive it can only be defined in
terms of itself. and it certainly en-
braces, as it exactly and carefully says
it embraces, ali matters and things
capable of private ownership.
The court then quotes several authori-
ties in support of the position taken, in
Guiding the decision in the celebrated
case of Marye against the Baltimore and
Ohio road. In conclusion, Judge Nc
kenna says:
The language of the California consti-
tuition is IAN property of the state not
exempt under the laws of the United
States, shall be taxed in proportion to
its value, to be ascertained as provided
by law
The California constitution, there
fore. applies to property without regard
to its kind or ownership. 1t is only nee
essary that 1t should be of the state.
The limitations of the Virginia statute
are not contained in the California con.
stitutioD G