The San Francisco call., 1904-02-16
MUNICIPALITY
WINS VICTORY
San Mateo Branch of United
Railroads Must Be Assessed
bv the Different Counties
JUSTICES CHANGE MINDS
Supreme Court Deals a Hard
Blow to the Corporations
and Board of Equalization

The Supreme Court has reversed
itself in the case brought by the San
Francisco and san MateO Electric RAN
way Company against eX-TaX Collector
Scott and now the corporations prop
erty viii be assessed by the authorities
OF the counties through which the line
runs instead of by the State Board Of
Fouslization. The Justices who
changed their minds are Shaw. Angel
lotti, L0rigan and Van Dyke. san
Francisco viii gain about $4,000 annually
as a result Of the courts decision
This particular difficulty between the
city authorities and the San MateO line
people arose in 1899, prior TO the pur-
chase of the property by the United
Railroads The corporation sought TO
restrain the Assessor. the Tax Collector
and the Auditor from taking the offlclal
stand that the San MateO line property
within the limits Of san FRANCISCO
should be taxed by this municipality.
II was maintained by the attorneys for
the company that the State Board Of
Equalization should make the assess
uent and that the two counties con-
cerned should get taxes in proportion
10 the number Of miles Of roadbed IN
each.
The judgment Of the Superior Court
was in favor Of the city. The Supreme
Court on appeal decided in favor of the
corporation. A. rehearing was granted.
The decision Just rendered sustains the
judgment Of the Superior Court. The
United Railroads is expected TO file a
petition for another hearing.
DISCUSS MEANING OF WORD.
The main question in dispute was as
20 the meaning Of the word railroads"
in the constitution The article on
which the corporation relied TO prove
its case IS as follows:
All property. except as hereinafter in this
section provided. shall be assessed in the coun-
~. city and county. city. township
district IN which ii is situated. in the man
way roadbed. rails and rolling stock of all
rair1sdS operated IN more than one county in
This State shall be assessed by the state Board
~ Equalization AZ their actual value. and the
sane shall he apportioned 20 the counties. cities
and counties. cities. towns. townships and dis
trlcls m which said railroads are located in
proportion 20 the number Of miles Of railway
laid IN such counties. cities. cities and coun-
ties towns, townships and districts
The railroad company argued that the
law applied TO inter-county street rail-
ways. The city authorities held a con-
trary view The court says that the
question Of motive power has nothing
10 do with the matter. It must be
shown that the trainers of the law
either did or did not have street rail-
ways in mind when they made the
measure part Of the constitution. The
court says that the context shows they
did not The purpose Of the provision
was 10 prevent conflicts between coun-
ties by having one body make the
whole assessment
FRANCHISES ARE DIFFERENT.
The franchises of steam and electric
railroads are different. The last named
are for use in the streets Of cities and
towns. The former are intended to
stop at more or less widely separated
points. The franchise of a street rail-
road is more of a local" affair. The
court holds that il would thus be an
anomalous condition Of affairs if the
franchise granted by one municipality
should benefit another local govern
ment.
II is said that Los Angeles might
have a great system Of railroads. The
line might run for thirty miles within
the county. and then a short spur track
might be- built into another county. The
State Board Of Equalization would
make an average valuation and appor-
tion the taxes. Los Angeles would have
by far the. most valuable portion Of the
road. but would get taxes only in pro-
portion to the miles of track within her
confines.
The court says in conclusion that
there are now being constructed some
hybrid roads. which are like street
railways in the city and like steam rail-
roads in the country These are except
ed in the decision.
The San Mateo line has trifie more
than eighteen miles of track in San
Francisco. The road is assessed at "A
valuation Of s138.000 a mile.
The opinion is written by Justice
Shaw. with whom Justices Lorigan. An
gellotti, N>n Dyke and Chief Justice
Beatty directly concur. Justices Nc
Farland and Henshaw adhere to their
previous attitude in the~matteT. Chief
Justice Beatty raised the only dissent
ing voice when the case was previously
decided in favor Of the corporation