The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-08-18
THE STATE WINS
A BIG VICTORY.
The Atlantic and Pacific
Road Must Pay Back
Taxes.
THE COURTS OPINION.
Ex.State Treasurer Mcdonald
Wins His Suit for the
People.
INTERSTATE LAWS DEFINED.
The Receiver Claimed That the Prop.
erty Had Already Been Taxed
in New Mexico.
INTERSTATE LAWS DEFINED.

The Atlantic and Pacific Railroad must
pay the taxes levied by the State Board OF
Equalization in 1894, amounting to $50, $50.
This was decided yesterday in an opinion
rendered by Judge McKenna in the case
of ]. w. Reinhart, receiver. against ]. R
Mcdonald, late Treasurer of the State OF
California.
In 1894 the rolling stock. including loco
motives, of the Atlantic and Pacific Rail
road used on short line in Southern Cali
fornia was assessed at $50, $50. The re-
ceiver protested, alleging that the property
in question had already been taxed in
New Mexico. Mr.. Reinhart, as receiver OF
the railroad sought to test the matter in
the courts by instituting suit against
Treasurer Mcdonald. Judge McKenna, in
his opinion, says:
The view that this is a suit against the State
is presented by the Attorney General with
the contention be true think it is a fair de-
duotion from the authorities as from the prin.
ciple that the right of suit against the
Treasurer Of the State being given it may be
brought in the Federal courts when other
grounds of jurisdiction exist as they do in this
case. l do not think 1t is necessary to review
the cases. they are very numerous and the
counsel has cited all of them. The claim OF
exemption from taxation OF the property de-
scribed is based on the following grounds:
First-That the property is engaged in inter
Second-That its situs is in New Mexico,
where taxes on it have been paid.
Third-That the Atlantic and Pacific Rail-
road is not the owner of the railroad, and
under the constitution of the State of Califor-
MIA 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 Rail-
road. 127 U. s. III, and Pullman Car Company
VS.. Pennsylvania. The constitution of the
State of California is as follows:
Section j, Article XIII. All property of the
State, not exempt under the laws of the United
States, shall be taxed in proportion to its value,
be ascertained as provided by law. The word
property, as used in this article and section, is
hereby declared to include moneys, credits, bonds,
stocks, dues franchises and all matters and
things real, personal and mixed capable OF private
Section TO- Article XIII. The franchise, road
roads operating in more than One county in this
State shall be assessed by the State Board of
Eqlaiizaton at their actual value, and the same
counties, cities, towns, townships and districts in
which such railroads are located, In proportion to
the number Of miles of railway laid In such coun-
ties, cities. =
These provisions seem to need no interpreta-
ton. The first section is so comprehensive 1t
can only be defined In terms of itself, and 1t
says 1t embraces, all 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 McKenna says:
The language of the California constitution
is: ''All property of the State. not exempt
under the laws Of the United States, shall be
taxed in proportion to its value, to be ascer-
tanned as provided by law"
The California constitution, therefore, ap-
r11f los IN M
ownership. 1t is only necessary that it sho uld
be of the State. The limitations of the Virginia
statute are not contained in the California
constitution.
The decision is regarded as one OF utmost
railroads have heretofore succeeded in
evading State taxation on rolling-stock
used under similar conditions, but accord
ing to Judge McKenna this is no longer
possible.