Court Opinion

ID: 9417442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:15:45.737304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:42.539608
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Field,
concurring.
I agree to the judgment of the court in this as also in the other tax cases from California. But I regret that it has not been deemed consistent with its duty to decide the important constitutional questions involved, and particularly the one which was so fully considered in the Circuit Court, and elaborately argued here, that in the assessment, upon which the taxes claimed were levied, an unlawful and unjust discrimination was made between the property of the defendant and the property of individuals, to its disadvantage, thus subjecting it to an unequal share of the public burdens, and to that extent depriving it of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. At the present day nearly all great enterprises are conducted by corporations. Hardly an industry can be named that is not in some way promoted by them, and a vast portion of the wealth of the country is in their hands. It is, therefore, of the greatest interest to them whether their property is subject to the same rules of assessment and taxation as like property of natural persons, or whether elements which affect the valuation of property are to be omitted from consideration *423when it is owned by them, and considered when it is owned by natural persons; and thus the valuation of property be made to vary, not according to its condition or use, but according to its ownership. The question is not whether* the State may not claim for grants of privileges and franchises a fixed sum per year, or a percentage of earnings of a corporation- — -that is not controverted — but whether it may prescribe rules for the valuation of property for taxation which will vary according as it is held by individuals or by corporations. The question is of transcendent importance, and it will come here and continue to come until it is authoritatively decided in harmony with the great constitutional amendment which insures to every person, whatever his position or association, the equal protection of the laws; and that necessarily implies freedom from the imposition of unequal burdens under the same conditions. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 31.
Much as I regret that the question could not now be decided, I recognize fully the wisdom of the rule that the constitutionality of State legislation will not be considered by the court unless by the case presented its consideration is imperatively required. Although the objection, that in the assessment of the roadway there was included property not appertaining to it, was raised in the answer and taken on the trial, the point was not discussed by counsel, as the constitutional questions were deemed of far greater importance. The attention of the court was specially directed to them, and thus the minor point was left undetermined.
After judgment had been entered in favor of the defendant on the ground that the assessment upon which the taxes claimed were levied was illegal, it entered into an agreement with the attorney general of the State to allow the judgment to be set aside and a judgment to be entered in favor of the plaintiff for the face of the taxes claimed, and to leave the question of its liability for the penalty, interest, and counsel fees to be finally determined by the Supreme Court. It is stated in the record that the object and purpose of the proceeding was “ to enable the defendant to pay into the State and county treasuries, on account, the sum for which the *424judgment was rendered, without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff in the case to proceed for penalties, interest, and attorney’s fees claimed, and in order that the litigation might he brought to a speedy conclusion.” It is also suggested that the same amount of taxes, if not recoverable when levied upon the property, might under the Constitution be recovered in another action when levied upon the mortgage; and in that event that the company could claim a credit from the mortgagees for the payment. The motives of the company in this matter, however, do not affect the question of its liability for the penalty, interest, and attorney’s fees. It was agreed between the respective attorneys that, in consenting to the judgment for the face of the taxes, the defendant should not thereby be deemed to admit their validity, desiring, as it would seem, to contest, on the ground of their alleged invalidity, the claim for the penalties, interest, and attorney’s fees. Judgment was accordingly entered for the plaintiff for the face of the taxes claimed and the amount has been paid.
The arrangement was a wise and judicious one on the part of the attorney-general, as it at once enabled the State and county treasuries to have the amount of the taxes levied, and to proceed for the penalties, interest, and- attorney’s fees. To have refused such an advantageous arrangement might have subjected him to just animadversion. Every right which the State could under any circumstance have had was fully guarded by the agreement. No conceivable benefit could have arisen to the State by his refusing to accede to it, and, as it has turned out from the decisions in the other cases, great inconvenience and loss would have followed.
The record shows that after the Circuit Court had announced its decision in favor of the defendant and different railway companies in forty other cases, brought to recover alleged delinquent taxes, they agreed to allow judgments to be entered against them for portions of the sums claimed. It was admitted by counsel on the argument that these judgments, amounting to several hundred thousand dollars, were for the face of the taxes; and that any claim in the cases for penalties, interest, *425and attorney’s fees, was by stipulation to abide tbe determination of the Supreme Court in the present ease.
According to the decision of the court in the Santa Clara case, the assessment upon which the taxes were levied was illegal, as it embraced items not assessable by the Board of Equalization. Of course no penalties for hot paying an illegal tax, and no attorney’s fees charged for the attempt to collect them, could be recovered, and for a like reason the interest of two per cent, a month claimed could not be demanded. Besides, the statute allows no such interest on delinquent taxes where property is possessed by the delinquent upon which a levy could be made for them. The collector must, on the third Monday of March of each year, make an'affidavit that the taxes not marked paid on the delinquent list have not been paid, and that he has been unable to discover any property belonging to, or in the possession of the persons liable to pay the same, from which to collect them. It is only on such delinquent taxes that the two per cent, a month interest is collectible. Since this case has been pending in this court a decision to that effect has been made by the Supreme Court of the State. People v. North Pacific Coast R. R. Co., 9 West Coast Rep. 514.