Year: 1871

MT. T.. w. MaSln, SECRETARY OI Inc ptatc
Board Of Equalization, occupies nearly col
umn in the Sacramento Union trying to con-
travert an opinion Of ours, that United States
lands are not subject to State and County
taxation. To do this the Secretary appeals
to and quotes from six or seven decision of
the Supreme Court, some of them as far
back as 1859, and then clinches the thing by
hoping that ''the editor of the Herald will
bow to the decisions Of the highest tribunal
in the State" Unfortunately for Mr. Mas
Inns side of the question, We do nothing SO
simple and silly as that, for the very good
reason that the Supreme Court don't bow TO
its own decisions, but is and has been contln-
ually, from its organization down to the pres


ent time, oven'uling, reversing and setting
aside its own decisions, and sometimes even
by the same judges that rendered them.
The question in issue is one in which the Su-
preme Court has no jurisdiction. A settles
on 160 acres L. S. Land and files his declara-
tory statement in the L. S. Land Office.
The Assessor is instructed by this Board to
assess the land and does it, and it is sold for
taxes. The United States, the only owner
of the land, refuses to recognize these pro-
ceedings, and A, after the sale, proves his
settlement and pays hi. money and gets bis
certificate of purchase, and finally the patent.
OF what avail then is the tax title, when it
is shown that it was procured for land that
was the property Of the United States at the
date of the tax sale, and that the conditions
Of the admission of the State into the Union
prohibited the land from being assessed and
taxed. Then what will the Supreme Court
do, rule out the United States patent and give
possession to the tax deed Nonsense. There
are but two parties known to transactions by
which Government lands pass from the United
States to the settler and they are Uncle Sam
and the purchaser, and the State has no
say in the business. The right of possession
is one granted by the General Government
and not by the State, and to talk of selling
United States lands on this right of posses
sion granted by the General Government is a
gross absurdity. The improvements on Uni
ted States lands may be taxed and sold for
taxes, and there the power Of the State ends.
The possessory law of the State is super
ceded by an act of Congress throwing open
the public lands, surveyed and unsurveyed
mineral or agricultural, for settlement and
occupancy. Hence, what is said about the
right Of possession, as that right now comes
from the General Government and cannot be
sold by the State, has no application. The
E.raminer also objects to our article, and
makes the broad and indefensible assertion
that the occupant of Government land should
pay taxes on its full value the same as if
the fee was in him. We suppose this rule
would tax man for riding borrowed horse


But is it possible that this Board and the
ETdntiiter does not know that nothing is
taxable but that which can be sold for taxes


Any other theory would make taxation une-
quail and violation of the Constitution A
has possession of Government land and no
other property, and he can't be taxed be-
cause he has nothing that can be sold B is
also in possession of Government land and
has other property out of which the taxes or
the land can be made So is made to pay
and A escapes. Is that equal taxation
Nearly all the Western States exempted all
lands from taxation for five years after pat
ents had been received for them, to encour-
age settlement and improvement, but here
we find men, Legislation and officers, who
actually insist upon the absurdity and out
rage of taxing that which the man does nc,
own, and that wi h the State is absolutely
prohibited from taxing and cannot sell. When
you have taxed the improvements on United
States lands, you have reached everything
the State can tax. A case in point exist in
this county. A settled on 160 acres [. S.
lands and built cabin. The Assessor as
sessed his possession to the land for 5000


Before the taxes were due A took down his
cabin and left B afterwards settled on the
land and filed his decaratory statement in
the L. s. Land Office b owes no taxes and
[. 5. land cannot be sold for taxes Will


the Eraminey or the Secretary of the State
Board of Equalization tells us how these
taxes on this 160 acres of Government land
are to be collected. This whole thing of tax
ing the land while the title is in the General
Government, is illegal, unjust and an absurd
ity. A pre-emptor cannot sell bis own pre-
emption right for the simple fact that he has
nothing until all the conditions of the law
are complied with and he has paid for the
land. The whole theory is an illegal shame