Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-08-27
70 the "usurping'' process OF the Fede-
raj courts.
STARTLINGLY FREQUENT.

4 80 'eSAthtc tOuft ndNinb nrtts NJ"
ever, substantially, that In forbidding a
private party to sue a state the Eleventh
amendment had reference only to a, direct
| demand uI on the State for money oDll-
CATION, many cases have arisen in which
| tnere being no such demand the state
governments. nevertheless have been
| brought before the bar of the Federal
Court, II not in fact and on record, yet as
the real defendants. Consider. for In
stance, the recent case in Tennessee
| The Railroad and Telephone Companies
VS.. The State Board Of Equalizers.' In
respect 10 this case, The Outlook. an able
| magazine published in New York, said
| In its Issue January S. 1898: Decisions OF
| Federal courts enjoining State officers
| from enforcing State laws are becoming
\ startlingly frequent. That OF the Fede-
raj courts in Indiana a few months ago
against the enforcement of the three-cent-
fare law in indianapolis, and that OF the
Federal Court in South Carolina against
the enforcement of the dispensary law
! against orignal-package saloons. have
been followed by another decision from
| a Federal Court in Tennessee preventing
| the taxation OF railroads according to
| State law" The Outlook reviews at some
| length the proceeding and says: THE
general public in Tennessee is. OF course,
indignant against the overthrow of the
State law.
WHAT THE GOVERNOR SAID.
In response to our request for informa
ton, Governor Taylor telegraphs us rs
follows: "The assessment OF railroad,
telegraph. and telephone properties was
| increased by the Board Of Assessors after
six months of thorough investigation as
10 the values OF these properties, and
this assessment was confirmed by the
Governor. Secretary of State, and Urea
surer after a thorough review Of the
assessment. This assessment increased
the valuation of these properties about
$2S 100000. The Federal Judge stepped in
and arbitrarily set aside the assessment
and made an argument against the State.
Our own State courts were open, and we
think they are thoroughly competent 10
settle questions involving the assessment
and collection Of our own State revenues
without the interference Of the Federal
Court. That Judge set aside our settle
ments, and in effect made one of his
own. Local self-government in the States
is destroyed when the Federal courts as
sumo control of State affairs"
The method of assessment the Court
censured in the following language: Not
withstanding anything that may have
been said in judicial decisions and legis-
lative enactments, no more uncertain and
delusive element I'm the attempt to fix
values was ever resorted to than the
stock and bond basis. To the person Of
average intelligence il is well known that
the stock and bonds do not, as a rule,
represent the money actually invested"
To which The outlook pertinently replies:
This is perfectly true, but as taxation
is based on market values, and not on
money invested it is difficult to see the
bearing of this fact" Not only do we
contend that this was a most aggravated
case of summoning a sovereign State be-
fore the Bar Of the Federal Court, but
the decision of the inferior Federal Court
upon the basis Of assessment adopted by
the state Board Of Assessors had in many
previous cases been disapproved by the
Supreme Court of the United States.
ASSESSORS OF STATE TAXES.
Well and truly did Governor Taylor say
in his message to the Legislature con-
corning this decision: I'm making their
valuation they Board OF Equalizers) were
directed by the act TO look 10 the earnings
Of the companies and the market values
OF their stocks and bonds. II has been
held by our Court TENNESSEE and in
number Of wel-considered cases decided
by the Supreme Court Of the United
States that these bases Of assessment
were not only proper, but best. These
decisions were. IL appears, disregarded.
and the learned Judge held that the earn
ings and stock and bond values are elu-
sive and deceptive and that valuations
based upon them are deceptive" State
r. r. cases, 80 L. s., col: Adams Express
co. VS. Ohio, 165. L. S. 2lS; ID. 165 L. s,
152. Western Union Tel Co. VS.. Taggart.
163 L. s.. l. II am sure / am doing the
learned Judge no injustice when | say
that the effect Of his decision is TO emas-
culate and destroy the assessment act.
and only reliable criterion OF value, and
make the Federal Court the assessor Of
State taxes" IF this decision is right
the States have lost authority to levy
and collect revenue from foreign corpo-
rations. No tax can be collected until
the assessment upon which II is based
has passed the scrutiny and received the
approval Of the Federal Judge. Until
then the hands Of the State are tied by
the injunction process Of the Court
ut was never contemplated by the au-
thors Of the Federal Constitution that
the authority Of the State TO tax property
within their limits should thus be inter-
fered with. And the substitution Of the
Will or Judgment OF the Federal courts IN !
the matter Of valuing property for taxa |
ton, for the will of the State, is clear
violation of the terms. The existence OF
government depends upon. the power OF
the State TO assess taxes and collect them |
when due"
a DANGER TO THE STATE.
1.-THE authority of the courts to in
terpose by Injunction, and arrest the as
sessment of taxes, or prevent their COL /
lection, is one fraught with menace ana [
danger to the State. Aside from the un- |
seemingless of dragging a sovereign State |
before a court, and subjecting it 10 the /
humiliatng attitude of COM |
mon litigant, such a proceeding inter- /
feres with the operations OF government |
by depriving the State Of the means OF /
the means Of paying its necessary eX- /
penses. and does untold harm 10 its credlt. |
Without taxes the government cannot eN-
list. The power 10 tax, and promptly COL /
lect, is necessary for government preser-
Walton" (From Governor Taylors pro
clamation TO the Tennessee Legislature, /
December %, 1872
My respect for judicial decisions and
for the Supreme Court OF the United /
States is inferior to no mans. but ven
ture to say that the recital OF the above /
case reveals a suit or proceedings against
a State in its worst and most dangerous
form and effect, and whatever may be
the distinction attempted TO be drawn
between suing the officers OF the State
under the guise that they are not the
State or that they are proceedingly IN
against a citizen or the
State. the substantial and real defendant
in the Tennessee case is the State, and
no suit could be brought against her more
menacing and dangerous 10 the dignity or
the State and to its existence as gov
l. 10 .HaHHH