The Courier. (Genoa, Nev.) 1899-1904, 1900-08-10
Carson Letter.


EDITOR COURIER. The Constitution
of the United States provides
'.nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty or property
without due process of law. nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws."--
Amendment Ii, Sec. 1. In the Railroad
Tax Cases, decided in IS Fed. Rep.
page 722, it is held that Equal pro.
lection of the laws'' means equal right
to resort to the Courts for the redress
of wrongs and enforcement of rights,
and exemption from unequal burdens
or exactions of any kind" whenever
the law operates alike on all persons
and property similarly situated equal
protection cannot be said to be denied"
Watson V. Nevins, 12s U. s., page SIS.
''This Constitutional provision applies
to. corporations" Santa Clara County
VS.. Southern Pacific R. R. Co, lis U.
s. page 394.
Article K, section of the Constitu-
ton of Nevada provides; 1.-THE Legis-
lature shall provide by law for a uni
form and equal rate of assessment and
taxation, and shall prescribe such reg
ulations as shall secure a just valuation
for taxation of all property, real. per-
sonal and possessory.p
The Legislature of Nevada. under
the foregoing authority, provided as
follows: After providing that all prop
erty should be assessed at its full cash
value, it defined the term asfollows:
'sThe. term, full cash value means the
amount at which the property should
be appraised iftaken in payment of
iustdebt from a solvent debtor" This
means that, if piece of property is
assessed at $1,000, if the owner would
sell it for that it may be assessed too
high, but if redeemed for $b000,- it
may be assessed too low, but if the
owner is in doubt whether to sell for
or redeem at that figure, it is assessed
as nearly. right as possible. It is
wholesome provision.
Section 1888 of the Compiled Laws of
Nevada says: 'In ascertaining, assess
ing and fixing the value of any rail-
road for taxation the Assessor shall
assess it the same as other property,
and shall consider, treat and assess the
portion thereof at its value within his
county as an integral part of COM
plete, continuous and operated line of
railroad, and not as SO much land COW
cred by the right of way merely, nor
as SO many miles of track consisting of
IRON rails, ties and couplings"
We thus find that the Legislature of
Nevada has followed its authority
given by the Constitution. But the
Supreme Court of Nevada has varied
from the terms of the Constitution. 1t
has held in the cases of State ". G. P
r. R. Co., 10, New. AZ, and State v. "
ct. R. Co., Is New. 2s3, that the term
leash value'' as applied to railroads
meant that the value of a railroad for
purposes of taxation must be deter
mined mainly by it's net earnings, cap
italized at the current rate of interest,
taking into consideration any immedi-
ate prospect of an increase or decrease
in the earning capacity of the road.
At first blush one might believe that
the cash value of a railroad would be
reached by calculating whatinterest it
pays on it's cost of construction, and
taking, into consideration its business
prospects and it may be good way of
ascertaining the cash value of rail-
road. But if it is correct way of as
pertaining the value of a railroad, it is
also the correct way of ascertaining
the cash value of farm, or amortgage,
or any other property. If farm does
not pay for year, it has no earning
capacity, and is only 80 much dirt, and
Its value would then be its prospects.
But the Assessor does not take into
consideration whether farm pays any
interest upon its cost or not. He as
sesses the farm at its cash value-at
the sum that a creditor would take
il in payment of just debt from a
solvent debtor. In order then to con-
form to the constitutional requirement
above quoted which provides for a uni
form and equal rate of taxation and
assessment, or deprive any person OF
property without due process of law,
or deny any person equal protection
of the laws, it would seem that the SUI
preme Court should give the same
significance and meaning to the words
''cash value'' whether applied to rail.
roads or to any other property in the
State. If by means of giving the term
ncash value'' different construction
when applied to railroads than when
applied to other property, property il
not assessed and taxed equally, the de-
cisions of the Supreme Court of thil
I, a