N 



CALIFORNIA. 



dent Grant, and the election of three Republi- 

 can and ooe Democrat and Liberal member. 

 Hot the election of September, 1878, was con- 

 trolled largely by new elements. There wan a 

 Legislature to be elected, which, as hu been 

 Mid, would hare two United States Senators 

 , ot, and subsequently (in October) there 

 were judges to be elected also. The contest 

 between the people and the railroad companies 

 had been growing more and more intense; on 

 the side of the former were rallied the great 

 farming and producing interests, now thor- 

 oughly alive to their danger from the oppres- 

 sive freight charges of the railroad companies. 

 and determined to control them and compel 

 the reduction of their rates ; while on the side 

 of the railways were the bankers, financiers, 

 and politicians. The railway companies suc- 

 ceeded in controlling both of the old political 

 organizations so far as to secure from tlnm 

 nominations which would generally vote in 

 their favor, but the people at once put up in- 

 dependent nominations, selecting those men 

 who could be depended upon to take strong 

 and decided ground against the railway mo- 

 nopolies. Governor Booth and Hon. Eugene 

 Ceseerly, who had just resigned the senator- 

 ship, recognizing the importance of this move- 

 ment, and the fact that it dominated all ordi- 

 nary partisan politics, put themselves at the 

 PSS'l of this independent or anti-monopoly 

 party, and labored with great real for its suc- 

 cess. The result* of this struggle were that 

 the new Legislature which organized on the 

 first Monday in December, 1878, was composed 

 at thirty-eeven strict party Republicans, forty- 

 two Democrats, and forty-one independents. 

 A considerable number of the Republicans 

 and DetnocraU were opposed to the railroad 

 monopoly ; but when the Legislature met on 

 the first of December it seemed exceedingly 

 doubtful whether a majority could be obtained 

 for any of the candidates for United States 

 Senators. The struggle which commenced on 

 the first day of the session continued for three 

 weeks, and there was a lavish expenditure of 

 money on the part of the railway companies; 

 bat on the 90th of December, Newton Booth, 



: . . . 



as elected for th.. 



lone term, six years from March, 1876, and 

 Judge Johnson 8. Hayes, an anti -railroad Dem- 

 ocrat, for the short term, the sessions of the 



I Congress. At the ontanizati< 

 the Legislature, Governor Booth laid before 

 than his second biennial message, a very able 

 docomeni, and one which exhibits the condition 

 and resources of the State with great fairness 

 and clearness. Some passage* of this message 

 will give a better idea of the State finances 

 and needs, as well as of its institutions and 

 their condition, than can be obtained else- 

 where. The equalization of taxes, a topic of 

 great interest in every large State, bad ev 

 attention and ceased the passage of an act by 

 the previous Legislature, and he thus relates 

 the action which had followed : 



Prior to 1879 no uniform rule was observed for 

 determining the values of property for purposes of 

 taxation! The result was, valuations were almost as 

 various as the counties, ranging from 15 to t< 

 cent, of real value*. As the rate of tsxatuu 

 county purposes was generally limited by law, the 

 counties that were poor and embarrassed 

 pi-lied to adopt a higher standard of valuation than 

 their more unfortunate neighbors, in order to obtain 

 the necessary county revenues, and their property- 

 holders paid an undue proportion for th. support of 

 the State government. To remedy this injustice the 

 State Board of Equalization was instituted. The 

 code adopted by the last Legislature did not assume 

 to enlarge the definition of property or change the 

 law of assessment, but only provided the machinery 

 for ascertaining the cash value of all that which tho 

 courts of the State had decided to be property sub- 

 ject to taxation in the meaning of tl . constitution, 

 so ss to secure tho uniformity the constitution re- 

 quires. Under the operation of this provision, tho 

 assessment rolls, ss equalized, were increased from 

 1867,868,120.76, m 1871, to $687,232,828.81, in 1878. 

 In order to conform to the fiscal theory ot the gov- 

 ernment, that tho revenues of each year should be, as 

 nearly as possible, equal to the aj ; 

 Legislature authorized the Board of Equalization to 

 determine the rate of taxation necessary to n,, < t the 

 current appropriations of the fiscal year alter tl.iy 

 had received and equalized the ai-- rns. 



For the twenty-fourth fiscal year (July 1, 1872, to 

 July 1, 1878), the Board fixed the rate at one-half of 

 one per cent. The rate was not reduced in the same 

 proportion the valuation was increased, for r> 

 shown in the report of the Board of equalisation : 

 1. Because under the code the Stutc derives i ir 

 revenue from a property tax only, and prior to its 

 enactment she had received annually about J440,OCO 

 from licenses, half the poll taxes, stamps, premiums 

 on insurance, etc. 2. Tue deficiencies of the t\v. uty- 

 second and twenty-third fiscal years were large, at 

 the rate of the State tax fixed by the Legislature of 

 1868 and 1870 was insufficient. 8. Unusually large 

 appropriations were made by the last Legislature. 



After various writs, orders, and appeals, a majori- 

 ty of the Justices of the Supreme Court, at the April 

 term, lt-73, held in substance: That the law creating 

 the Hoard of Equalization, and authorizing it to fix 

 the rate of taxation, was constitutional; that the 

 taxation of solvent debts amounted to double taxa- 

 tion, and violated the rule of the constitution w liich 

 requires uniformity. On account of this decision, 

 solvent debts were omitted from the assessment 

 rolls of 1878, and the amount of taxable property 

 reduced to (6x7,208,988. The Board were prev 

 from making a reduction of the rate corresponding 

 ta the reduction of expenses, but compelled to again 

 fix it at one-half of one per cent, to raise the neces- 

 sary revenues. After a rehearing of the cases in 

 which the decision above referred to was rendered 

 on the 7th of Nov. n.lu r. 1-73, it was held by the 

 majority of tho court, two justices dissenting, that 

 the law prescribing the powers of the State Board of 

 Equalization was constitutional. 



1 am of opinion that the constitution should pro- 

 hibit injunctions to restrain tho collection of 

 ir in tho recommendation of the State ! 

 that the law should provide that taxes paid , 

 pri-test should be paid over to the State and county, 

 and that the tux-payer desiring to test the legality 

 of the taxes so paid should t>e denied nn : 

 against the tax collector to recover, but allowed one 

 against the county and State. 



No system of taxation can bo absolutely just, but 

 no system is so unjust practically as one that is but 

 partially enforced, and which necessarily lays the 

 biir.ieni of government upon those who are 

 able, or most patriotic and conscientious. Appro- 

 priation* are made by tho representatives chosen hv 

 the people for that purpose. If the science of politi- 



