People v. Central Pacific Railroad

I dissent. The prevailing opinion goes entirely upon the ground that the provisions of the Political Code relating to the assessment and collection of taxes levied upon railroads operated in two or more counties are in conflict with section 25 of article 4 of the state constitution, — a section which prohibits local and special legislation on certain enumerated subjects. In my opinion, the legislation referred to is neither local or special: it is not local, because i't operates throughout the state; and it is not special, because it applies to all railroads of a class created and defined by the constitution itself. I content myself with this brief indication of the grounds of my dissent, because want of time precludes a more elaborate statement.

The question as to the alleged conflict of our revenue law with the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States not having been considered in the opinion of the court, the occasion does not call for any expression of my individual views.

This is an action brought in the name of the people of the state to recover from the defendant a certain sum of money alleged to be due the state for taxes, and also various other sums of money alleged to be due to divers of the counties of the state, for taxes for *395 the year 1886. The defendant demurred to the complaint, which demurrer was, upon argument, sustained by the court below, and judgment entered for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals.

So far as we are advised, this is the first case in which the precise questions here involved, under the present constitution, has been presented for adjudication. To a complete understanding of it, we give the pleadings at some length. The complaint, after giving the title of the court and cause, is as follows:—

“Plaintiff avers that on the fourteenth day of August, in the year 1886, the state board of equalization assessed the franchise, roadway, road-bed, and rolling stock of the defendant at the sum of twenty million dollars; that the board apportioned the said assessment as follows: To the county of Alameda the sum of $2,607,230 [and here follows similar language as to sixteen other counties, differing only in…