State of California v. Central Pac Co Same v. Southern Pac Co Same v. Northern Ry Co Same v. California Pac Co Same v. Central Pac Co Same v. Same
| Decision Date | 30 April 1888 |
| Docket Number | No. 662,No. 664,No. 660,No. 1,157,No. 661,No. 663,660,661,662,663,664,1,157 |
| Citation | 32 L.Ed. 150,127 U.S. 1,8 S.Ct. 1073 |
| Parties | STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. CENTRAL PAC. R. CO. SAME v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO. SAME v. NORTHERN RY. CO. SAME v. CALIFORNIA PAC. R. CO. SAME v. CENTRAL PAC. R. CO. SAME v. SAME |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Statement of Case from pages 2-12 intentionally omitted]
Mr. J. M. Wilson for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel on pages 12-26 intentionally omitted]
Geo. A. Johnson, Atty. Gen., Saml, Shellabarger, and J. M. Wilson, for the State of California.
Creed Haymond, H. S. Brown, Geo. F. Edmunds, and Wm. M. Evarts, for the railroads.
These cases are substantially similar to those of Santa Clara Co. v. Railroad Co., and the other cases decided at the same time, and reported in 118 U. S. 394, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1132. It will be unnecessary, therefore, to set out any provisions of the constitution and laws of the United States and of California which are involved in the present cae § in common with those referred to . The actions were brought by the state of California in the superior court for the county of San Francisco, and were removed into the circuit court of
the United States, where a jury was waived in each case, and the causes were tried by the court, whose findings of fact and conclusions of law are contained in the respective records. One of the cases (No. 660 on the docket) was brought against the Central Pacific Railroad Company for the recovery of the state and county taxes due upon the assessment of the company's property made by the state board of equalization for the year 1883; said assessment being $18,000,000, and the taxes amounting to $276,865.10, 60 per cent. of which was tendered and paid without prejudice to either party after the suit was brought. Another case (No. 1,157) is an action against the same company for the taxes of 1884, due upon a like assessment of $24,000,000. A third, (No. 664,) against the same company, is for the taxes of 1884, upon an assessment of $22,000,000. No. 661 is a similar action against the Southern Pacific Railroad Company for the taxes of 1883. No. 662 is a similar action against the Northern Railway Company for the taxes of 1883, No. 663 is a similar action against the California Pacific Railroad Company for the taxes of 1883. Tender and payment of 60 per cent. of the taxes were made in all the cases except 1, 157, in which the amount tendered and paid was 50 per cent. Similar defenses were set up in these cases as in the cases reported in 118 U. S., supra. It was claimed, as in those cases, that in making the assessments no deduction was made for the mortgages on the companies' property, while such deduction was made on the property of other citizens, by assessing to the mortgagees the amount of the mortgages as an interest in real estate; thus discriminating against the company, and denying to it the equal protection of the laws, contrary to the fourteenth amendment of the constitution. It was also alleged, in defense, that the board of equalization included in the assessments a valuation of rights, franchises, and property which they had no authority to assess; as, for example, franchises granted to the companies by the United States, and ferry-boats, fences, and other property subject to be assessed by the local county boards, and not by the state board; and that the assessments were for aggregate amounts, not showing on their face what part of the valuation
represented the property illegally included therein,—thus rendering the entire assessment in each case void. It was on this latter ground that the judgments for the defendants in the former cases were affirmed. If these defenses, or either of them, are supported by the facts, it is unnecessary for us to decide the question raised under the fourteenth amendment of the constitution. The questions arising under that amendment are so numerous and embarrassing, and require such careful scrutiny and consideration, that great caution is required in meeting and disposing of them. By proceeding step by step, and only deciding what it is necessary to decide, light will gradually open upon the whole subject, and lead the way to a satisfactory solution of the problems that belong to it. We prefer not to anticipate these problems when they are not necessarily involved.
The ground on which it is alleged that the assessments in question were made to include property which the state board had no authority to assess, is to be found in article 13, §§ 9 and 10, of the state constitution. Those sections are as follows: 'Sec. 9. A state board of equalization, consisting of one member from each congressional district in this state, shall be elected by the qualified electors of their respective districts at the general election to be held in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine, whose term of office, after those first elected, shall be four years, whose duty it shall be to equalize the valuation of the taxable propery in the several counties in the state for the purposes of taxation. The comptroller of state shall be ex officio a member of the board. The boards of supervisors of the several counties of the state shall constitute boards of equalization for their respective counties, whose duty it shall be to equalize the valuation of the taxable property in the county for the purpose of taxation: provided, such state and county boards of equalization are hereby authorized and empowered, under such rules of notice as the county boards may prescribe as to the county assessments. and under such rules of notice as the state board may prescribe; as to the action of the state board, to increase or lower
the entire assessment roll, or any assessment contained therein, so as to equalize the assessment of the property contained in said assessment roll, and make the assessment conform to the true value in money of the property contained in said roll. Sec. 10. All property, except as hereinafter in this section provided, shall be assessed in the county, city, city and county, town, township, or district in which it is situated, in the manner prescribed by law. The franchise, roadway, roadbed, rails, and rolling stock of all railroads operated in more than one county in this state shall be assessed by the state board of equalization at their actual value, and the same shall be apportioned to the counties, cities and counties, cities, towns, townships, and districts, in which such railroads are located, in proportion to the number of miles of railway laid in such counties, cities and counties, cities, towns, townships, and districts.'
The last section shows explicitly that, in regard to a railroad, the state board has power to assess only five things, the franchise, roadway, road-bed, rails, and rolling stock. The county boards are authorized to assess all the rest of the property. If the state board includes in its assessment any more of the railroad property than it is authorized to do, the assessment will be pro tanto illegal and void. If the unlawful part can be separated from that which is lawful, the former may be declared void, and the latter may stand; but if the different parts, lawful and unlawful, are blended together in one indivisible assessment, it makes the entire assessment illegal. This is so well settled that it needs no citation of authorities further than to refer to the opinion of this court in the former cases. 118 U. S. 394, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1132. In the present assessments, all parts of the property are blended together, and are inseparable. If it be true, therefore, that property not authorized to be included in the assessments is included therein, the assessments must be declared void.
The legislature of California, in passing laws for carrying out the principles and methods of taxation laid down in the constitution, has deviated from its words, and has adopted some provisions which would seem to be a departure from it.
As the state board of equalization in making the assessments in question undertook to follow the law, it will be necessary to examine it. By section 3628 of the Political Code, as amended in 1880, it was provided as follows: By section 3665 of the same Code, as amended by the act of March 9, 1883, it is, among other things, provided as follows: 'The state board of equalization must meet at the state capitol on the first Monday in August, and continue in open session from day to day, Sundays excepted, until the third Monday in August. At such meeting the board must assess the franchise, roadway, road-bed, rails, and rolling stock of all railroads operated in more than one county. Assessment must be made to the corporation, person, or association of persons owning the same, and must be made upon the entire railway within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Klein v. City of Louisville
...too well settled to warrant elaboration or debate. Kohl v. U.S., 91 U.S. 367, 23 L. Ed. 449; California v. (Central) Pacific R. Co., 127 U.S. 39, 8 S. Ct. 1073, 32 L. Ed. 150; Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525, 14 S. Ct. 891, 38 L. Ed. 808; Wilson v. Shaw, 204 U.S. 24, 27 S. Ct......
-
Northern Securities Company v. United States
...did not intend to change any old principle, or to enunciate any new principle, of constitutional construction. California v. Central P. R. Co. 127 U. S. 1, 32 L. ed. 150, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 153, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073; Page 308 Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, 23 L. ed. 347; Cooley v. Port ......
-
Schlosser v. Welsh
...36 S. Ct. 453, 60 L. Ed. 779 (state tax on lessee of Indian lands, under authority of federal government); California v. Central Pac. R. Co., 127 U. S. 1, 8 S. Ct. 1073, 32 L. Ed. 150 (state tax on franchise granted by federal government); Home Savings Bank v. Des Moines, 205 U. S. 503, 27 ......
-
Philco Corporation v. Phillips Mfg. Co.
...system); Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525, 529, 14 S.Ct. 891, 38 L.Ed. 808 (bridges); California v. Northern Pacific R. Co., 127 U.S. 1, 39, 8 S.Ct. 1073, 32 L.Ed. 150 (railroads); Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U.S. 1, 47, 32 S.Ct. 169, 56 L.Ed. 327, 38 L.R.A.,N.S., 4......
-
VESTED RIGHTS, "FRANCHISES," AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.
...imposes the affirmative duty of rendering a public service demanded by any member of the public"); California v. Cent. Pac. R.R. Co., 127 U.S. 1, 40 (1888) ("[A] franchise is a right, privilege or power of public concern, which ought not to be exercised by private individuals at their mere ......
-
CHAPTER 5 RAILROAD RECORDS AND TITLES
...highway" or a franchise. Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Railroad Co., 135 U.S. 641 (1890); California v. Central Pacific Railroad Co., 127 U.S. 1, 39 (1887). See also Thomas v. West Jersey Railroad Co. 101 U.S. 71 (1880). (Grants of right of way, together with authority to acquire land ......
-
Property Rights, Federalism, and the Public Rights-of-way
...corporation. BLACK'S LAW Dictionary 668 (7th ed. 1999). 34. 12 MCQUILLIN, supra note 31, at § 34.01. 35. California v. Cent. Pac. R.R. Co., 127 U.S. 1, 40-41 (1888). See also Tulsa v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. 75 F.2d 343, 350 (10th Cir. 1935) ("franchise is a special privilege conferred b......
-
Collective action federalism: a general theory of article I, section 8.
...franchise grants for interstate railroads in 1888, but relied on the Commerce Clause in doing so. See California v. Cent. Pac. R.R. Co., 127 U.S. 1, 39-41 (45.) 297 U.S. 1, 66 (1936). (46.) 301 u.s. 548 (1937). (47.) 301 u.s. 619 (1937). (48.) Butler, 297 U.S. at 64. (49.) Id. (quoting 1 JO......