\* 
 
 Univk 
 
 JBRARY 
 
 y of California. 
 
 Gl FT OF 
 
 ixodtc %^^^Jk^<.. 
 
 Class 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Taxesof 1880 to 1884, inclusive 3 
 
 Taxes of 1885 to 1887, inclusive 15 
 
 Taxesof 1888 to 1892, inclusive 21 
 
 Concluding observations 22 
 
 Summary 25 
 
 Appendix (statements and tables) 28 
 
C.\t<.^. . &**-*~*t ~.~r-V* 
 
 SPECIAL REPORT 
 
 itc 
 
 OF THB 
 
 ATTOENEY-GENEBAL 
 
 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 
 
 ON 
 
 RAILROAD TAX CASES AND RAILROAD TAXATION. 
 

 SPECIAL; REPORT 
 
 RAILROAD TAX CASES AND RAILROAD TAXATION. 
 
 Attorney-General's Office, ) 
 
 Sacramento, January 17, 1893. \ 
 To the Hon. H. H. Markham, Governor of the State of California: 
 
 Sir: The Legislature being now in session, I herewith respectfully 
 submit a special report concerning the railroad taxes remaining unpaid 
 by various railroad companies in this State since the adoption of the 
 new Constitution. In this connection your attention is called to what 
 has already been stated upon the subject of " railroad tax cases " in my 
 report to you, dated September 15, 1892. Although no proposition has 
 been made, except as appears by the communication to me from E. L. 
 Craig, Esq., of the law department of the Southern Pacific Railroad 
 Company, under date of January 12, 1893, hereinafter set forth, to settle 
 the taxes, I make this report and collate facts and figures regarding 
 these matters so as to place the subject intelligibly before you and the 
 Legislature. 
 
 The following report regarding unpaid railroad taxes and railroad tax 
 litigation, pertains only to the Southern Pacific system of railroads. 
 The tabulation in the Appendix hereof shows the taxes for each year 
 from 1880 to and including 1892, the sums at which each road was 
 assessed, and the amount of the State and county taxes. There also 
 appear herein two statements, which were used as Exhibits "A" and U B," 
 in the case of John Rooney vs. E. C. Marshall, Attorney-General, et al. 
 (69 Cal. 647), and portions of the reports of former State Controllers, 
 regarding railroad taxes, so as to advise you and the Legislature as to 
 the then condition of affairs. 
 
 The correspondence above alluded to is as follows: 
 
 " Law Department S. P. Co., ) 
 
 " San Francisco, Cal., January 12, 1893. j 
 " Hon. W. H. H. Hart, Attorney-General: 
 
 " Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your favor of this date referring to the pending contro- 
 versies between the people of the State and the railroad companies composing what is 
 known as the Southern Pacific System, in regard to taxes, and the suggestions heretofore 
 made on behalf of the companies of a purpose to submit some proposition for an adjust- 
 ment of the same, and inquiring whether I am now prepared to submit such a proposi- 
 tion in their behalf. 
 
 " In answer to your inquiry, I will say that while the companies referred to are desirous 
 of promoting a speedy settlement of these controversies upon such terms as shall be fair 
 to both parties, an examination of the subject has convinced me that it will be useless 
 for the companies to submit any proposition covering the whole matter and involving 
 any degree of compromise, because of the very serious doubt as to the authority of any 
 executive officer of the State to accept the terms that might be proposed, so as to bind 
 the State and relieve the companies from further controversy in regard thereto. 
 
 "As I understand it, there are those in authority who claim on behalf of the State that 
 nothing short of the full payment by the companies of the amounts assessed against 
 them respectively since the controversies began, with all the cumulative penalties and 
 costs incurred in the proceedings had to enforce the assessments, will relieve the com- 
 
Bancroft Library 3 
 
 j .aiiics Mid their propertiei from the lawful demands of the State. Thli claim Ui made, 
 notwithstanding the fact that for these] rs up to and including L884, nearly if 
 
 not quite all of the suits have been determined either by judgment In fa\ or 01 the com 
 panics, or by judgments against them which have been hilly paid; and that (or 1 1 1 * - 
 up i" an<i i lie iini in claimed by the companies that the assess- 
 
 ments unlawfully included the Federal of the aided roads, and therel 
 
 dered the assessments void ss to them. The fact that 1 1 1 - Federal franchises " 
 included up to and Including the years 1885-6 is, 1 think, undisputed by any one, and 
 whether tl o included In 1887 Is, in fact, now being litigated between the | 
 
 The effect in the case referred to, of the judicial finding upon this controverted 
 must be so controlling that I do not think either party is likely to make to the other a 
 proposition of settlement which will be, accepted. 
 the situation is further complicated by the fact that In addition to the suit brought 
 
 in the name of the State for the entire tax claimed to he due to the BtatC and CO unties 
 {87, SUitS have heen e< mi niciiccd hy t he several COUntiCS lor their alleged 
 
 proportions of the tax, thus subjecting the companies to a douhlc litigation as to each 
 
 county t:i\. 
 
 "The <mly other case now pending is that of the People vs. The San Pablo ami Tulare 
 inn. before the Supreme Court Of the United Mate-. The very small amount 
 involved in this ease is insufficient to warrant further cent rovexsy, and the other reasons 
 which were Supposed to justify it seem to me no longer to exist". 
 
 "In view of the fact that the railroad companies referred to as under the Southern 
 
 Pacific management have for live years last oast heen promptly paying their ts 
 
 levied, and propose to continue so doing, and the further tact that' a decision of this ease. 
 veil if adverse to defendant, cannot possibly affect the main questions involved in the 
 other litigated cases, I think that the question in this ease will have ceased to he impor- 
 tant to either party if t he taxes are paid in full, with 5 per cent penalty claimed, and 
 legal interest from the date of alleged delinquency to the time of payment, together 
 witli all costs that may he chargeable therein in other words, if the company pays to 
 the State and counties all that can by any possibility be recovered in the event of a 
 judgment in favor of the people. 
 
 I understand that some two years or more ago this company tendered full payment 
 tot he State of these taxes, and that its officers declined to accept the payment. 
 
 " 1 now renew, to you. the otter to pay these taxes, penalties, interest, and costs, which 
 if it be accepted, will remove at least one of the irritating questions between the parties 
 and tend to promote an adjustment of the others. 
 
 this 1 will add that I understand that the company's counsel, at the time of enter- 
 ing into the stipulation under which this case was taken up, contended, and have ever 
 claimed that the record in the case was not such as to necessitate a decision upon 
 the point which the counsel for the State desired to have settled; and t hat since the stipu- 
 lation was entered into the Supreme Court of this State has rendered a decision in rela- 
 tion to the statutory provisions for the collection of taxes upon which this action was 
 founded, which if adopted bv the supreme < lourt of the United states, as is usual upon 
 such questions, may reasonahly he expected to result in an affirmance of the judgment 
 upon these minor propositions' and without a decision upon the main question supposed 
 to be presented and sought to be settled. 
 
 "Inasmuch as there can he no question of your official right to receive in settlement of 
 
 this case all that could by any possibility be recovered in it, 1 submit to your profes- 
 
 aml official judgment this offer to settle the case last mentioned, and as soon as 
 
 the technical doubts as to any authority to settle the remaining cases shall have been 
 
 removed, as I have no doubt they can be, I will submit a proposition in the hope of 
 
 ttling all other pending questions. 
 
 " Respectfully yours, 
 
 K. L CRAIG." 
 
 For convenience this report on railroad tax cases and railroad taxa- 
 tion is subdivided as follows: 
 
 'Taxes of 1880 to 1884, inclusive. 
 
 Second Taxes of 1885 to 1887, inclusive, no part of which has been 
 paid. 
 
 Third Taxes of 1888 to 1892, inclusive, all paid so far as due. 
 
 FIRST. 
 
 Taxes of 1880 to 1884. 
 
 Statements numbered 1 and 2 in the Appendix hereof show the 
 
 ~>c(l value of the various railroads in the State for the years 1880 
 
 and 1881, as appears by the State Controller's report for the thirty- 
 
4 
 
 second and thirty-third fiscal years, page 23. Said report shows that 
 for 1880 the railroad taxes for State purposes were $199,514 50, and 
 the delinquent taxes for State purposes $196,805 81; for the year 1881 
 the amount of taxes for State purposes was $228,134 31 and delinquent 
 taxes for State purposes $220,317 61. Thus it appears that only a small 
 portion of the taxes, and those by one or two roads, were paid. In 
 reference to this matter the Controller, Hon. D. M. Kenfield, states 
 (p. 23): 
 
 "In order to comprehend how great was the injustice done to the revenue of the whole 
 State it must be understood that in addition to the delinquent State taxes, there was 
 also a delinquency of the railroads to the several counties in the taxes of 1880 of $351,- 
 894 68, and of 1881 of $349,039 50; making a total delinquency of State and county taxes 
 for the two years of $1,118,057 60. 
 
 "Since the delinquency of 1881, the San Francisco and North Pacific Railroad Com- 
 pany paid, under protest, their taxes delinquent of that year, amounting to $8,528 10, and 
 the North Pacific Coast and South Pacific Coast have each paid its taxes due for 1880, 
 amounting to $7,285 39; these amounts representing the State portion of the tax. Since 
 the close of the last fiscal year, there has also been paid, in the various counties, by 
 several of the railroad companies, about 60 per cent of the tax for the respective vears, 
 1880 and 1881, as follows: 
 
 "Central Pacific Railroad Company, in Sacramento and Merced Counties, $33,855 78. 
 State portion, $13,105 62. 
 
 "Southern Pacific Railroad Company, in Kern County, $57,530 48. State portion, 
 $16,021 93. 
 
 "Sacramento and Placerville Railroad Company, in Sacramento and El Dorado Coun- 
 ties, $12,105 82. State portion, $4,381 56. 
 
 "Amador Branch Railroad Company, in Sacramento County, $3,421 09. State portion, 
 $1,476 78. 
 
 "California Pacific Railroad Company, in Sacramento and Yolo Counties, $9,267 03. 
 State portion, $4,003 55. 
 
 " Northern Railway Company, in Yolo County, $5,545. State portion, $2,391 63. 
 
 " Vaca Vallev and Clear Lake Railroad Company, in Yolo County, $2,419. State portion, 
 $1,044. 
 
 " Making a total on account of State taxes of $58,239; leaving due the State for taxes of 
 years 1880 and 1881, a balance of $358,884 42. 
 
 " It is not surprising that the failure of the railroads to pay their taxes should have 
 caused widespread consternation. The whole revenue system of the several counties 
 was disarranged thereby; the ordinary obligations of the counties could not be fully met, 
 and in many of the counties the public schools were closed for want of funds. 
 
 "A serious phase of the subject is, that in most of the counties the Boards of Super- 
 visors considered the propriety of reducing the valuation fixed by the State Board of 
 Equalization, in which body the Constitution fixed solely the power to assess railroads; 
 and in the counties of Alameda, San Mateo, Yolo, and Sacramento, the Boards of 
 Supervisors did reduce the assessment of railroads apportioned to them by the State 
 Board of Equalization. 
 
 " To test the rights of such action by the County Boards, a case, at the instance of the 
 State Board, was brought before the Supreme Court of this State. 
 
 "The Court rendered its decision, holding that the County Boards, in reducing assess- 
 ments, acted in violation of the Constitution. 
 
 " I have done all that lav in my power to force the collection of the railroad taxes, but 
 without success. The ordinary process of collecting taxes is to offer the property for 
 sale, depending on bidders to purchase the property. From the nature of the railroad 
 property, it was thought that it was not probable that any purchaser could be found to 
 purchase a portion of a road located in a county. 
 
 "I therefore had recourse to the provisions of Section 3899 of the Political Code, which 
 reads as follows: ' The Controller mav, at any time after a delinquent list has been 
 delivered to a collector, direct such collector not to proceed in the collection of any 
 tax on said list amounting to three hundred dollars, further than to offer for sale but 
 once any property upon which such tax is a lien. Upon such direction, the collector, 
 after offering the property for sale once, and there being no purchaser in good faith, 
 must make out and deliver to the Controller a certified copy of the entries upon the 
 delinquent list relative to such tax; and the Tax Collector or the Controller, in case the 
 Tax Collector refuses or neglects for fifteen days after being directed to bring suit for 
 collection by the Controller, may proceed, by civil action in the proper Court, and in the 
 name of the people of the State of California, to collect such tax and costs.' 
 
 "The next section provides for a form of complaint for the issue of a writ of attach- 
 ment, and for ten per cent counsel fees. 
 
 " It will be seen that the control of such suits was in the hands of either the collector 
 or Controller, and that no suit could be begun until the property had been offered once 
 for sale. 
 
 "It must also be remembered that the whole delinquent property must be offered for 
 sale within four weeks after the first publication of the sale. 
 
"In - the several collectors had published tin- delinquent lists, I made ;m 
 
 order directing each collector to offer the railroad property bui onoe and H 
 
 there were do Didders i<> \\ ithdraw tin- property from sale. 
 "In the meantime a stockholder in the Central and Southern I 'untie Kuilnmd Com 
 an alleged resident of New Yon the District Court of the 
 
 united Stat t each colleotor to enjoin him from offering the property of said 
 
 aniea for sale. 
 "After the time had elapsed for the collector to offer the property tor sale, the 
 injunctions irere dismissed, but thereby tin- jurisdiction of the Controller to direct the 
 oing of actions was Lost 
 I made like orders in i^ s i. for the withdrawal <f the railroad property from tal< 
 
 \ short time before the period of sueb offering the'eoinpanies Mini 
 
 .ut writ> >f injunction against the several collectors. These suits were begun in the 
 Superior Courts of San Francisco, and, of course, had the effect to delay the action of 
 the collector until the time had passed within which he could act. upon a bearing, 
 Judge Waymire dismissed the suit against the collector of the county of Sacramento, 
 
 led that the other writs would be dismissed in time for the collectors to 
 
 be property for >a le. 
 "After the writ of injunction against the collector of Sacramento county had been 
 
 vacated, and he was about to otter the property of t he < entral Pacific Railroad < ompany 
 lie for taxes for ISM. the attorney for the railroad company went to Alameda 
 
 County, and obtained from Judge Green, of the superior Court, a writ of prohibition 
 against the collector, prohibiting him from proceeding; with the sale. 
 
 the reason, therefore, that the railroad companies, hv the machinery of law, pre- 
 vented the accruing of the right >f the t !ont roller to sue, 1 have been onable to collect 
 
 the taxes, hoth of Inland 1881. 
 
 I showed before, if the Controller had heen permitted to sue, the suits would 
 have heen under his control, and the means to enforce the action would have been 
 found in tin- ten per cent counsel fees to be paid by the defendants. 
 
 - Inthe session of 1880 an Act was passed by the Legislature providing that in an action 
 in any county for the collection of delinquent taxes, the county may sue in its 
 Own name for the 'recovery of the taxes, whether it be for counts or (state purposes, or 
 either of them. 
 
 in the summer of 1882, I received advices that the railroad companies were offering 
 to compromise their taxes by paying into the county treasuries 60 per cent of the 
 inc. and that many of the Boards Of Supervisors \\ ere contemplating accepting 
 such offers. No law could be found authorizing directly such compromise. Moreover, 
 the dread that the State would insist on the county paying to the State the whole of tin- 
 State taxes due. doubtless deterred the Board from accepting the oiler. 
 
 "Another plan, however, was adopted. The Supervisors of several of the counties 
 directed the District Attorneys to begin action under t he Act of 1880, against the com- 
 panies for taxes due In 1H80 and 1881. Suits were begun in Sacramento. Merced. Kern. 
 Yolo, and El Dorado Counties. The Supervisors of said counties directed the District 
 Attorneys to compromise the suits by accepting 60 per cent of the taxes due, and 
 allowing judgment to be entered for that amount, the companies paying the amount of 
 the judgment into the County Treasury. 
 
 "In the case of the County of San Mateo against the Southern Pacific Railroad Com- 
 pany, for the collection of State and county taxes for the year 1881, a decision has 
 recently heen filed by Justice Field, of the Circuit Court of the United States, wherein 
 it is decided that the Constitution of this State is unconstitutional in so far as it pro- 
 vides for the present mode of assessment of railroads hv the State Hoard of Equalization. 
 If this decision is sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States, the State Con- 
 stitution will have to be amended in order to assess the various railroads of the State. 
 
 "Pending the decision of the cases carriea to the Supreme Court <>f the United states, 
 I earnestly recommend that a different system of collecting the tax from railroad 
 companies should be adopted. The law requires the state Hoard of Equalisation to 
 apportion the tax among the counties in the ratio that the number of miles of rail- 
 road in the county bears to the whole number of miles of the road in the State; to 
 make a statement of the amount apportioned, with a description of the track and right 
 of way in the county; this statement to be entered on the assessment book verbatim. 
 In the event of the taxes upon the railroad property becoming delinquent, there is no 
 
 E revision how the Tax Collector shall sell, and lie o'ffers the property in like manner as 
 e does real estate. The purchaser would take such portion <>f the road as might be in 
 lunty, but his relation to the company is not determined, and being so indefinite, 
 must involve him in litigation. The plan winch I propose, and which I think is per- 
 sible, is as follows: 
 ' The State Board of Equalization shall assess the franchise, roadway, roadbed, 
 rails, and rolling stock of railroads Operated in more than one county. 
 
 "Second The Board shall apportion such assessment among tne several counties 
 entitled thereto in the ratio as is at present prescribed. 
 
 "Third The Board shall make an entry of such assessment, describing the road suffi- 
 ciently well to identify it. and the apportionment of the same, in a book to be called the 
 Assessment Book of the state Board <>f Equalisation. 
 
 rth Sin h hook shall then be transmitted to the Controller, who at the proper 
 time (or such duty may devolve upon the Board, as at present) shall notify the Board of 
 
6 
 
 Supervisors of the amount of assessment apportioned to the county, as a basis for 
 county taxation. 
 
 "Fifth The Controller shall calculate, and carry into a column, in the book, the 
 amount of taxes due the State. 
 
 "Sixth As soon as the rate of county tax is fixed by the Board of Supervisors, the 
 Auditor of the county shall notify the Controller of such rate. 
 
 "Seventh The Controller shall then calculate the amount due the county, and carry 
 the amount into a column prepared for the purpose. 
 
 "Eighth -Each railroad company must settle with the Controller for its taxes, and pay 
 the amount into the State Treasurv. 
 
 "Ninth The State Controller and Treasurer shall credit each county with the amount 
 due the county on account of taxes paid by the railroad companies, and notify the 
 County Treasurer thereof. 
 
 "Tenth In the event of any railroad company failing to pay its taxes, the Controller 
 to have authority to prosecute an action for the State tax and the county taxes due, in 
 one suit, prescribing the form of complaint so that there shall be no failure for want of 
 form. 
 
 "As railroads operated in more than one county are assessed as a whole, it does not 
 appear to me that the interests of the State are best subserved by dividing the collection 
 of the tax into as many parts as there are counties through which the road passes. 
 
 "I think that the plan of placing the collection of taxes upon railroads, assessed by 
 the State Board of Equalization, under one authority, is one that will commend itself. 
 I trust that the Legislature will give my suggestions consideration." 
 
 Statements Nos. 3 and 4 in Appendix hereof, show the unpaid 
 taxes of 1882 and 1883, upon the Southern Pacific and Central Pacific 
 systems of railroads, except as paid to Attorney-General Marshall, as 
 hereinafter more particularly mentioned. 
 
 By State Controller Dunn's report for the thirty-fourth and thirty- 
 fifth fiscal years, it appears (page 24) that upon February 12, 1884, 
 there was due and remaining unpaid for former years to the State of 
 California and the several counties from the Central Pacific and 
 Southern Pacific systems of railroads, the sum of $2,730,303 39. (This 
 sum includes all penalties, interest, and costs up to that date.) Upon 
 this subject the Controller in his report states: 
 
 "For the year 1883, with the single exception of the North Pacific Coast Railway, 
 every railroad in. the State, other than the Central and Southern Pacific systems, paid 
 its taxes in full; and in addition the Central Pacific paid in full for that year upon these 
 branches: Amador branch, Sacramento and Placerville, Vaca Valley and Clear Lake, 
 and the Santa Cruz Railroad Company (owned by the Pacific Improvement Company), 
 amounting, for State purposes, to $3,697 68, leaving a delinquency against the Central 
 and Southern Pacific systems for State purposes, for that year of $178,423, and for State 
 and county purposes, $555,628 46, on the face of the tax. To this must be added 5 per 
 cent penalty, 2 per cent per month interest, together with costs and attorney's fees. 
 
 "It is unnecessary for me to recount the struggles made by the State in earnest 
 endeavors to collect these taxes. It is historv that must be fresh in the mind of every 
 one. Nor is it necessary here to recapitulate the various proposals put forward by these 
 corporations, in the way of propositions to evade the payment of their taxes. 
 
 "Transactions called compromises have been entered into between these corporations 
 and certain officials, whereby a sum less than that due has been accepted as payment 
 of the taxes levied. But I have refused to accept the payments thus made. I did so 
 because I believed that, as an officer of the State, I had no right to accept less than the 
 whole amount due the State. 
 
 "Acting upon this conviction, I notified the Treasurers of the various counties 
 interested that this office would not make settlements of these taxes for less than the 
 full amount due. I also advised the Auditor and Treasurer of Contra Costa County to 
 refuse to accept the taxes tendered them by the Attorney-General, who thereupon began 
 suits to compel acceptance. At my instance, Hon. W. W. Foote represented the Contra 
 Costa officials in the Courts; the case is as yet undecided. The heavy hand of the law 
 is laid upon the house and home of the farmer, and the owner of city and town home- 
 steads, for delinquency, and the property is sold at tax sale; and is there any good 
 reason why railroad property should be exempted from the severe penalties imposed upon 
 other classes of property for delinquency? Is it of loftier or holier character than the 
 homes and firesides of families? Let the certainty be established that legal clouds will 
 fall upon the title to this class of property through sale on account of delinquency, and 
 that redemption profits such as accrue to purchasers of other kinds of property will 
 ensue, and railroad delinquencv and obstinacy will end together. 
 
 " I heartily concur in the recommendation of my predecessor that the commencement 
 and control of all suits against railroad corporations for taxes be put in the hands of the 
 Controller. 
 

 The attorney's fees provided for by law air ample, that laying the state against any 
 expense whatever, ami the great time, labor, ami careful research required in the prepara- 
 tion and nresentation of these cases will occupy more time than can 1..- devoted to them 
 by officials haying all the other great interests of the State to protect." 
 
 The Centra] Pacific and Southern Pacific Railroad systems were also 
 assessed for tin 1 taxes of 1884. I have tabulated the mileage, assessed 
 value per mile, number of miles in the State and each county, total 
 assessment for State and in each county, the amount of tax levied for 
 the State and each county, the amount paid, and the several amounts 
 delinquent, which tabulation appears in the Appendix hereof as state- 
 ment No. 5. 
 
 The Controller, Hon. .lohn 1'. Dunn, in his report for tin- thirty-sixth 
 and thirty-seventh fiscal years (page 24), says: 
 
 shown hy my last hiennial report, there was due at that time from the Central 
 
 and Southern 1'aeiiic railroads and branches, for the years 1880, 1881, and 1882 ; $1,029,- 
 
 this amount there was paid to Attorneys Jeneral Marshall, and by him paid 
 
 to the State ami to various Oounty Treasurers (in the way of partial pavment's). the sum 
 
 of $470,476 08, besides other settlements, which, added to this, leaves unpaid for theee 
 
 - the sum of $416,252 28, as shown by reports on file in this otlice. 
 
 1889 the amount delinquent was $555,628 46, of which there has been paid $333,- 
 577 1 '. leaving vet unpaid $222,251 33. 
 
 1884 the amount was $653,373 12, of which $329,520 63 has been paid, leaving yet 
 due $323,852 49." 
 
 The following exhibit shows in detail the amounts paid (as already 
 given) into the State Treasury by the Attorney-General, E. C. Marshall, 
 from the several roads, and for the years named, together with the 
 amount that thereby was apportioned to the respective funds to which 
 tin- moneys belonged: 
 
 Amount of Delinquent State and County Taxes Paid into the State Treasury June 19, 1886, 
 by E. C. Marshall, Attorney-General. 
 
 Names of Railroads. 
 
 Taxes of 1880. 
 
 Taxes of 1881. 
 
 Taxes of 1882. 
 
 Taxes of 1883. 
 
 Taxes of 188-1. 
 
 California Pacific Railroad. 
 
 ' $1,985 "\2 
 3,053 57 
 
 2,811 85 
 
 ~27,239"99 
 
 "$2,i66"09 
 3,505 56 
 
 2,793 77 
 
 ~27,755~64 
 
 
 $15,580 56 
 17,373 13 
 6,044 81 
 
 2,453 22 
 125,806 31 
 166,119 10 
 
 $14,172 09 
 
 15,646 93 
 
 5,295 80 
 
 Northern Railway ... 
 
 $1,415 50 
 2,658 16 
 
 1,662 15 
 
 "28,778 "45 
 
 San Pablo and Tulare R.R.. 
 
 Stockton and Copperopolis 
 
 Railroad 
 
 Southern Pacific llailroad.. 
 Central Pacific Railroad 
 
 124,720 81 
 169,685 00 
 
 Totals 
 
 $35,090 53 
 
 $36,155 06 
 
 $34,514 26 
 
 $333,377 13 
 
 $329,520 63 
 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 Taxes 1880. ._ $35,090 53 
 
 Taxes 1881 36155 06 
 
 Taxes 1882 34,514 26 
 
 Taxes 1883 333,377 13 
 
 Taxes 1884 329,520 63 
 
 , Total. $768,657 61 
 
 I/ess express charges from San Francisco to state Treasury 384 36 
 
 amount paid State Treasurer $768,273 25 
 
 rB. Page twenty-live. Controller's report, thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh fiscal 
 
 \ear>. 
 
The Controller further says (page 25): 
 
 " In this connection, I desire to repeat the following from my last biennial report: , 
 
 " ' It is unnecessary for me to recount the struggles made by the State in earnest 
 endeavors to collect these taxes. It is history that must be fresh in the mind of every- 
 one. Nor is it necessary here to recapitulate the various proposals put forward by these 
 corporations in the wav of propositions to evade the payment of their taxes. 
 
 " ' Transactions called compromises have been entered into between these corporations 
 and certain officials, whereby a sum less than that due has been accepted as payment 
 of the taxes levied. But I have refused to accept the payments thus made. I did so 
 because I believed that as an officer of the State I had no right to accept less than the 
 whole amount due the State.' 
 
 " It has been asserted and insisted by the Attorney-General and the attorneys for these 
 railroad companies that the payments made by them to him were payments on 
 account, but there was nothing in the records of the Court (at the time these partial 
 payments were made) to show that the rights of the State and the several counties to 
 collect the balance due were protected. The records themselves are untrue, and a mere 
 examination of them will show the deception practiced. 
 
 " Before the committee of the Assembly of the extra session of 1884, constituted to 
 investigate and report upon the character of the Attorney-General's actions in relation 
 to these railroad tax matters, Mr. Marshall stated that he had a stipulation in the case 
 fully protecting the rights of the State, yet when called upon by the committee to 
 produce it, Mr. Marshall stated that he had such a stipulation, but was unable to find it. 
 The attorney for the railroad stated that no such stipulation existed, but that he would 
 give such an one. Subsequently a piece of paper, purporting to be a stipulation, was 
 presented to the committee by the Attorney-General. This document was worthless, 
 but its worthless character was not discovered by the committee. Some months after- 
 wards, however, this office discovered it and (in a letter addressed to the Attorney-Gen- 
 eral on November 3, 1885) exposed the deception practiced upon the committee. Yet 
 nothing was done by that official either to correct the record or to secure such a stipula- 
 tion as would protect the rights of the State. Afterwards John Rooney, Esq., of this 
 county brought an action to compel the Attorney-General to pay, the Controller to cer- 
 tify, and the State Treasurer to receive into the State Treasury, the partial payments the 
 Attorney-General had accepted from the railroad companies. And up to this time no stip- 
 ulation bad been placed on file, and no stipulation is of any value until it is placed on 
 file. But after the Rooney case brought the matter before the Supreme Court of the 
 State, the Attorney-General did file a stipulation in sixty -three cases covering taxes for 
 1881 and 1882. 
 
 "Again, in the cases for railroad taxes for 1884, wherein the Attorney-General accepted 
 50 per cent of the face of the amount due, the findings of the Court show that the 
 State Board of Equalization assessed the fences along the lines of the roads, and the 
 distance across the bay of San Francisco a distance of four miles as four miles of the 
 railroad. The State Board of Equalization did not assess either the fences along the lines 
 of the railroads nor the distance across the bay of San Francisco. No testimony was 
 introduced on the trial to show that such assessments had been made. And yet, in the 
 face of this fact, the Attorney-General permitted this record to be made a part of the 
 findings of the Court. It is a significant fact, in this connection, that the decision 
 rendered against this State by the Supreme Court of the United States in a similar 
 railroad tax case, was based upon the fact that the findings showed that the (former) 
 State Board of Equalization had assessed the fences along the lines of the roads thus 
 putting these cases in the identical condition of those already decided against the State 
 by the Supreme Court of the United States, and rendering it worse than useless to appeal 
 them. In a letter addressed to the Attorney-General, on the 18th of last June, I called 
 his special attention to the false condition of the record. And during the last two 
 months, I examined the records and found them still in the same condition, as they 
 probably are yet. 
 
 " For some time the Attorney-General claimed to have in his possession a large sum of 
 money paid him by certain railroad companies as partial payment of taxes due. In a 
 letter I addressed him on November 3, 1885, and at other times, I asked him to bring an 
 action in the Supreme Court to have the question determined as to my authority to 
 receive these so-called payments on account, but he refused to do so. I also asked from 
 him a statement showing the amount received from each railroad, the year for which it 
 was paid, the amount for State, and the amount for county purposes. This was 
 absolutely essential to me in order that the money might be properly apportioned to the 
 various funds. Yet he refused to furnish me the information. 
 
 " The Supreme Court, in the Rooney case, decided that the United States Circuit Court, 
 being a Court of competent jurisdiction, having ordered the Attorney-General to receive 
 the money from the railroad companies, it would not review the decision, and ordered 
 the Controller to certify it into the treasury. But it did not determine either the right 
 of the Attorney-General to compromise taxes or decide the question as to his right to 
 receive taxes on account. Neither did it determine the question as to whether payments 
 made were partial or, under the condition of the records, were in full satisfaction. 
 
 "It is scarcely necessary for me to recall to you the earnest efforts made, through your 
 office and mine, to secure a full hearing of the issues involved in the right of the State 
 to tax railroads under the present system. Suffice it to say, every effort of the railroad 
 
9 
 
 attorneys has been exerted to prevent t >n lifinjr hear.l rita. Your 
 
 efforts culminating tn an exhaustive Letter to the 8upreme Court of the i nited States, 
 bave been earnest and effective In thai letter, under date of November 25, 1886, you 
 art to advance those cases upon the calendar, and hear and determine 
 An early hearing was therehy had; yet your struggles, like those Of all 
 a who bave earnestly sought to secure a full hearing of the issues Involved, irere 
 doomed to defeat in the San Mateo County ease nothing was Involved but the clean' 
 i deral question of the right of the State to tax corporations, under its Constitution, 
 th that point decided, nothing remained for decision out -id.- of <> inrta. 
 
 It had been heard In L882 by the United States Supreme Court, was Hi 
 on the calendar, had been argued, and was ready tor decision, it vrai selected as a test 
 The railroad company secured i postponement of that decision. They con- 
 stantly declared their an\ii'i\ for an early decision, and just as constantly intef] 
 
 ble obstacle against a decision being rendered. They Deed every endeavor 
 t.> bave that case dismissed, failing in which, they drove the attorneys for tin- state 
 9. Rhodes and Barstow out of the < in evidence of the virulent hostility 
 
 U-.C.1 to thwart the efforts upon the part of State offlcere to have the ease beard, could 
 anything more despicable be presented than the history of that oase, ai shown in the 
 I the officials of San Mateo County, in abetting the railroad company In having 
 that rase dismissed, as is seen by the following affidavits: * * *" 
 
 Before the moneys were paid into the State Treasury by Attorney- 
 
 Greneral Marshall, as specified on page 7, there was, on the 10th day 
 of November, 1885, an action commenced in the Supreme Court of the 
 State of California by John Rooney against Attorney-General Marshall 
 and State Controller Dunn (69 Cal. 647) for writ of mandate compelling 
 Baid Dunn to certify into the State Treasury the moneys collected 
 by said B. C. Marshall from the railroad companies. In order to fully 
 explain the facts in that case, I here insert exhibits A and B, which 
 were offered and received as evidence in said cause, as follows: 
 
10 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 O 
 
 PI 
 p 
 
 
 
 &q 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 S 
 
 03 
 
 C 
 
 o 
 
 = 
 
 & 
 
 js 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 s 
 
 o . 
 
 if!! 
 
 Is- 
 
 fl is 
 
 ill 
 
 StJ29riSP3^ot^eoQOC<ii-iQoooQOCDoo^t^ 
 
 CO^NCOOSOOOH^HOSOIMOWOOWWNHlO 
 r^Hi-INCOCONNHNHNmHlOlOHONW* 
 
 !888S 
 
 ffiOOO 
 
 0<MN05 <M 
 t~- CD i-t tH OC 
 
 COHt^OOOOCDO)OOOCD(N(NlOH^iOlOCOlOOON-*ttl'*CD'OOlOlOo6(NCOr^ 
 
 o3c3c3c3c3c3c3e3o3o3c3c3c3c3c3o3o3o3iS<Sc3c3^^^^^^^^^;T':7 
 
 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa S55555 555555 
 
 000000000000000000000 o UOCJOC - ;)OUCJC - )UU 
 
 C fl c 
 
 O3o3o3c3c3o3e3o3o3o3o3c3o3o3o3o3o3o3o3o3o3c3 
 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O- 
 
 03 ftftp, 
 
 as 
 
 cpooog 
 
 ^3^^^^j O O C 
 c3 o3 c3'c3'o3 oS^OC 
 
 1 c3 c3 c3 c3 
 
 '5 '5 '3 '5 '3 '3 '3 '3 '3 '5 '3 '3 '3 "3 '3 '3 "3 '3 '3 '3 '3 "53 Ph K Ph P3 tf Ph P3 Ph Ph Ph P3 s>> >> > 
 ^5 ^5 ^5 ^ *< ^ S '^ * "^ ^5 ^ '"5 ^ ^ * ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ' 'o 'o 'o "o "o "o 'o 'o 'o ^ ^ ^ 
 
 'O 'O *0 'O "O 'O 'o *S 'o 'O '3 '3 '3 "3 '3 '3 '3 '3 '3 '3 '3 '3 ^ o 3 o 3 r? 3 o 3 ^ n 03 r? 3 ^ ^ n 3 r? 
 
 a a a 03 a a c3 03 03 c3 c3 03 03 a a 03 c3 c3 cScs^osP^^^^P-iP-'PhPhPhP-iPhPhP^ 
 Ph Ph Ph Ph Ph Ph Ph Ph Ph Ph Ph Ph Ph Ph Ph Ph Ph Ph Ph Ph Ph Pm ccCPlrtflflplflflplCiSc: 
 
 l3^^^^^l3'3 r c3 , c3 r c3 r c3 r c3 , ^'d'c3 r ^ r c3 r 3 r 3'o3 , 3 o>ojQ<p<ucpa>a>a>a><Da ; 
 a>a>a>a><Lia>a)aiaiaiaia>aia)a><i;a>aa)a><uaooooooooooo 000 
 
 OOOUQUOQOOOUUOQ! 
 
 -2S 
 
 2 =C M 
 
 HCO-*Tj<MT)<aiT)(OO^iO(MOCOCOOOfflNOO(Ni 
 
 lOOOOJOiOCOOi 
 
 CNtHtHi-HtH 
 
 COCO^ tH' 
 
 r< 03 * 
 
 O *^t 1 bo 
 
 a fl "CO 
 
 *N(NHCOCCM(N(N^>OlMOOOa>0^-ICOO'*COOt-rH(NN0505COlON-*W*CDH 
 COmcpMiOCOOt^MMOOlOOHOQOCONiHO;'*>COOr-IH(NCD(NNCOlON0010N 
 
 
 COWlOOOl0005005lOOlOMOOH(NC005Mmi0005'*>OlCCONCONN05COCOH 
 05(^^i^iHC<II^C<lC>)rHOCN^COCNOU^OOCX^CCCOCCTtHt^l^COCNCO^lO^CXi^l^C^ 
 
 W^NiNrilN^N^NNHOHMOOWCOOJaiOOOOaH^INNOJOlONOONOO 
 NeO^<Nrf(Hffi(X)Ot^OCOOOO^WONiO(Mt^COrf<-OCDOCt-(MTt<(MCOO'-(^ 
 i-tO?t^OSI-^r-ltNiHCNTHe^iHI>lOiHTt<COCOCNCC>OJ(M<NTHCCQO000<X> <NiH<Mi-t 
 
 n^ 03 
 o Ch 
 
 Pi o 
 
 
 
 o M 
 
 OOOO CDQOOi 
 
 02^0iCOCO"*l0^lOCOOlOQOCO-^QQt^OOCOt^CNIt^OO 
 
 i-IOO-^<-^C<J-*ai-<#00-rtilOCNOCOCDOCXiCDt^OOOOt^OOO'_ 
 
 lOC005T)<(NNOiOOCOCOOOOCOHTj(OiOlO^(X)COCOO'HT(<Tj(03if3N' 
 
 ONOHNWOHNOHNOWOHOWNOHNOMOHNOHNOHOOHN 
 QOCCC^COCCCOCOOOQOCOCCCCQOOOCOCOQOCOCOCOOO<OOCCOOCOQOCCOOOOOOOOOOQOOOCC 
 COCOCOCCCOCOOOCOCOCOCOOOCOCCCOC<)COOOCOOOCCCCQOCCCOCCCO(COCOCOOOOOOOQOOC 
 
 *-> pi 
 S*o 
 
 00 
 
 55 
 
 OCO^CCO^COCOC0001^CCCOi^OC^OTt<CCO^tNCP'^ , t^05'<^Oit^CXi050iOCD< 
 OOQO^OCDOOOOOOJOOONIMHCqHN^^tfilOailrtMCDCOOOOOHCOWl 
 NNOOOOOOOOOOOiQOOOOONONOOONNt-IOOOOOOIXX 
 <!(^C<lCOC<l(^COC<lCOC<>CNCCCNC<lCOCNCN<NCN( 
 
1! 
 
 cf<oV*V<%jV' co ti ?i ~ - rj / : : : :' Ef^^^SfSf^^^^Sf 
 
 98S8$838S3Sa$83S&S:SS;S3$S;:s& 
 
 ^cff-Ti-r^ercireCi 1 - 1 : 1 .-.'.-:' -' ' oaTjJ'of etfcf 
 
 5 5 5 
 LL.L 
 EE = , 
 
 s - 
 
 -= P.ftii 
 
 sags = -**-* 
 
 O o C : 
 
 oc - 
 
 pgtftf 
 
 - i 
 
 es cs a j^w .. 
 
 :/ ' :,' 
 
 
 2 5 
 9 : 
 
 3 3 
 
 ~ 
 a = 
 s - 
 
 o o 
 
 = = = = = 
 
 V ^ V ^? ^ 
 
 >.>.>.= = = 5 = 
 
 = = a o c 
 
 = = :: s s s s 
 
 5 5 5- jUOO 
 
 a .2 .2 .22 .2 .2 'd 'd 'O * 
 
 ,2,2 ooooocooo 
 P4QQppC t, - - 
 
 . .. n n n a ' 
 
 C 
 
 2H. 
 
 j a <y 
 
 o o 
 
 
 
 ejg.g 
 
 _ ^ - ~ ;= =: ^ ^ ^ ^ ji ,; 
 
 E E fc 
 
 VtIO w ;. > > > - 
 
 OCOOOsJcJeoS 
 
 335- 5j3p2 
 
 P = =.=-=,=.=,^000 
 
 HHH O ca cfi <d cfl 
 
 oooo 
 
 "^~'^ r 3n3s3o3e3e3 
 eSeJoJ = C = = = 
 OOO 8 " Sdale! 0)eJcJcJ 
 
 ~5==== 
 
 - o 
 
 s-aa-asillllelfil 
 
 * ^-^-^-^-^222 
 _ _ _ 0oeooS<H>ss 
 
 = - = = = 5 =^ s"= ~ 
 
 - - 
 
 7. 7. 
 
 - - r 
 ^ ?! 
 
 S 5 
 
 <s = * 
 
 c u 3 a) 
 
 H 75 ~ 
 
 ~ C o 3 
 
 _ 30 /- X 
 
 SSSSeSSSSSSSSS^^r-^^i-^r-^ia-r;^ 
 
 O eo C-l - N 
 
 S r- CC 
 
 f. 
 
 7 / " r i 
 
 ~ ~ OI -.1 " 
 
 ift Oi ** CO -l -H 00 -* -H CI i-O -J "C 
 
 i~ i- o coco 
 t- t~ o oo kO oc r i -.r ~ z : < 1 - t^ cc 55 
 
 coci^h h. 
 
 : r- r. c - 1 r i - /- 
 < ..- r:i/::-:- 2 X S S 
 
 r 
 
 <NC^5< HHH 00CO^H !M(M ^lOuD-^lO^Hi-HO 
 
 ^_ir_0 Bier, r ::r: '005t-oc^-toooO'ij<oot-'iJ"<*" 
 
 H -t ^H CO 
 
 
 
 -M - ?l 
 
 ElpI 
 
 > eo c^ os c-i r^ i 
 
12 
 
 ! si 
 
 
 C5 * 
 
 3 3 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 Si O 
 
 Pq 
 
 Bq 
 
 as 
 
 Hi 
 
 E3 t 
 
 ei- 
 
 s s c 
 
 ""J CN^CO 
 
 S3 o3 fl 
 
 S*gH 
 
 ^ 3 * O 
 rj oic-i^ 
 
 s=l3 s 
 
 P o 
 O o 
 
 i-l CO 
 CO-* 
 
 t^CO 
 
 CO CM 
 
 (NC5CON 
 GO CM rf< CD 
 CMCMOCO 
 
 CM t- 
 
 ON 
 
 COCO 
 
 co~co~ 
 
 lOCO 
 
 i^co 
 
 PI 
 & 
 
 O PI 
 (=1 * i P-ijO 
 
 o-> c _ 3 jh 
 
 1o&2E^ 
 o^o^2g 
 
 S3 
 
 1.3.3 s^g 
 
 +5 O 
 
 O <U 
 
 CO CO -* CO r* <M 
 i-l CO CO CO -* CO 
 CM CO Ci CO CO O 
 
 j>rco"io"irr cm" 
 
 lO t~ lO t CO * 
 
 CO t^ id CO CO t^ 
 
 oq_co Oi c^o 
 co"aTco"io~Tfrcr 
 
 t^OCSCN -r-i 
 <M<M 
 
 CO CO CO CO CO CO 
 
 'COO coco 
 
 i <M * CO y-t 
 
 CO 
 
 o3 O 
 
 tin? 
 O 03 
 CJ o 
 
 S o 
 
 c3i-h >>,."3 
 Q> O O c3 c3 
 
 o <u 
 
 looxooo 
 
 CO iC COCO CO 
 05 Tt 1 O 1- O 
 
 co%*rco~c>fr-r 
 
 CO CM 
 
 05-*CO COCO 
 
 NHlfllOH 
 
 co rococo co 
 
 CD CM CO O i-l 
 CX CM lO COlO 
 
 cooo^n 
 
 lO lO CO O CO 
 COOCOCO CO 
 
 CO^COCN^ 
 5^ 
 
 CO CO CO CO 
 
13 
 
 The Supreme Court, in t he above mentioned action entitled John 
 Rooncv. petitioner, \>. pidward C. Marshall. Attorney-General, and in 
 a similar proceeding brought by the County of San Mateo, petitioner, 
 against D. J. Oullahan, State Treasurer, beld and decided as follows: 
 [Opinion by Mr. Justice Uoss, concurred in by Chief Justice Morrison, 
 and by Justices Mvrick. Sharpstein, McKinstry, and McKee. Filed 
 May 28, L886; reported m 69 Cal. 647]. 
 
 These casrs will be considered together. Each Lean application for a writ of man- 
 directed to the respondent! In l^eir official capacity, requiring of them the per- 
 formance of certain acts demanded of them by the law If the money In question b a 
 ol the public revenue. The money is now in the bands of the Attorney General 
 of the State, and 32 98 in amount 01 this sum 1140,686 20 was received by bim 
 
 in. in the defendants In certain actions Instituted by certain counties of the State against 
 certain railroad corporations for the recovery of delinquent taxes for tin- fiscal years 
 1880-81, 1881-82, ami L882 B8; the remaining $862,897 73 was received by bim from the 
 defendants in certain actions Instituted by the State against the same corporation^ for 
 delinquent taxes fOT the fiscal years 1883-84 and 1884-85. In the first class of cases the 
 suits wen- brought under the Act of the Legislature approved April 2:{, 1880, authorising 
 any county or city and county, where taxes are delinquent, to sue in its own nan 
 the recovery t hereof, 'whether the same he tor county, or for city and county, and State 
 purposes, or taxes, or either of them. 1 (State. 1880. p. 136.) [n toe second class of cases 
 
 the suits weri' hronght under that provision of the 1'olit ical Code, as amended i: 
 
 declaring thai "after the first Monday in February of each year the Controller must 
 
 bring an action, in the proper Court, in the name of the people of the State of Califor- 
 nia, to collect the delinquent taxes upon the property assessed by the State Board of 
 Equalisation; Buch suit must be for tne taxes due the State, and all the counties, and 
 cities and counties, upon property assessed by the Board of Equalization, ami appearing 
 delinquent upon the duplicate record of apportionment of railway assessments. The 
 demands for State and county and city and county taxes may be united in one action.' 
 
 ( l'ol. Code. Sec. 9670.) 
 
 " Pursuant to statute, the actions embraced within the first class above alluded to in 
 number sixty-three were commenced by the District Attorneys of the respective coun- 
 
 i the Superior Court of their respective counties. They were all subsequently 
 transferred to the circuit Court of the United States, and there came on regularly for 
 trial the Attorney-General appearing for the plaintiffs and after trial were submitted 
 to the Court for decision. On the 28th of February, 1884, the Court ordered that judg- 
 ment be entered in favor of the defendants in the actions, but before judgment was 
 so entered, and on the next day. February 29, 1884, stipulation was presented to the 
 Court in forty-one of said sixty-three cases, signed by the attorney for the defendants, 
 and hy the Attorney-General of the State for the plaintiffs, agreeing in effect that, 
 notwithstanding the* decision of the Court before announced, that judgment should 
 be entered in favor of the plaintiff in the respective actions for the face of the taxes. 
 And the circuit Court thereupon and upon the oral consent of the attorneys for the 
 
 tive parties vacated the order theretofore entered for judgment in favor of the 
 
 lants, and made and entered a iudgment in favor of the respective plaintiffs in 
 said forty-one actions for the face of the taxes; and therein apportioned the amounts of 
 the respective sums between the State and the respective counties. A similar stipula- 
 tion and judgment was entered in each of the remaining twenty-two cases of the 
 sixty-three originally commenced by the District Attorneys. The amounts of the judg- 
 ments thus rendered and entered by the Circuit Court of the United States were 
 subsequently paid to the Attorney-General of the State by the defendants in the actions, 
 and a part of which is the aforesaid sum of $140,685 10. 
 
 the actions embraced within the second class already alluded to, there were pend- 
 ing on the 29th of September, 1884, in the Circuit Court of the United States for 
 California, six certain eases prosecuted by the people of the State of California against 
 the railroad corporations tor the collection of delinquent taxes tor the fiscal year 1883-84. 
 
 ol said actions was originally commenced in one of the Superior Courts of the 
 
 State hy attorneys employed tor that purpose by the state Controller, but the actions 
 
 subsequently transferred, on motion of t he "defendants therein, to the < ircuit Court. 
 
 And in that Court, on the 29th of September, 1884, the following order was made and 
 
 entered in each of them: 
 
 Whereas, the defendant in the above-entitled action, while denying all liability 
 upon the cause of action stated in the complaint, pleaded that on the ninth day of 
 
 November, 1883, it had tendered and offered to pay plaintiff the sum of $ , in United 
 
 coin, in part payment of the tax claimed, with an agreement that the receipt 
 of said sum should not prejudice the plaintiff in any legal rights; and whereas, the 
 defendant in said answer averred that it had brought said sum into Court, and offered the 
 same to plaintiff, and subjected the said sum to such orders or judgments as the < lourt 
 might make in the premises; and whereas, of the sum so tendered the defendant spe- 
 cially tendered, for the benefit of the State, and on the amount claimed bv the State, the 
 
 sum of $ , and on account of the various countv taxes it tendered sums as 
 
 follows, to wit: 
 
14 
 
 "' For the county of the sum of $ (naming the several counties and 
 
 the several amounts). 
 
 " ' Now, upon motion for attorneys for plaintiff, it is ordered by the Court that the 
 defendant, within five days from the date hereof, make said tender good by paying to 
 Edward C. Marshall, Attorney-General of the State of California, and one of the attor- 
 neys for plaintiff herein, the said sum of $ , United States gold coin (said sum being 
 
 the amount alleged to have been tendered), to be by the said Marshall, upon the receipt 
 thereof, paid into the State Treasury of the State of California, for the benefit of the 
 State of California and of the counties above named, and in the respective amounts 
 above specified; and it is further ordered that neither the payment nor the receipt of 
 said sum shall prejudice or affect any right of either party to this action to maintain or 
 defend it as to the balance claimed in the complaint.' 
 
 "The amounts thus ordered to be paid by the Circuit Court amounted to 60 per 
 cent of the face of the taxes, and aggregated $333,377 10, and were paid to the Attorney- 
 General by the defendants in the actions within the five days mentioned in the order. 
 On or about May 26, 1884, the Controller substituted Mr. D. M. Delmas for the attorneys 
 originally employed by him, who has since been the only attorney employed by the 
 Controller. Mr. Delmas did not consent to the order of September 29th, but on the con- 
 trary, at all times resisted it. Subsequently, in each of said six cases, final judgment 
 was entered for the defendants. 
 
 " Of the actions embraced within the second class first herein alluded to, there were 
 pending on the 16th of September, 1885, in the Circuit Court, five certain other cases 
 
 Erosecuted as were the six cases last referred to, and in which similar x>roceedings were 
 ad, except that the amount ordered to be paid by the Circuit Court to the Attorney- 
 General by the respective defendants, and which was accordingly so paid, was the sum 
 of $329,520 63, and was 50 per cent of the face of the taxes. 
 "The foregoing are substantially the facts as presented by the findings. 
 "It is quite clear, we think, that unless we can treat the judgments of the Circuit Court 
 in the first class of cases, and the orders of that Court in the second class of cases, 
 directing the payments of the respective sums of money as void, we must hold the 
 money paid by virtue of them to the Attorney-General of the State as a part of the 
 public revenue. For in the one instance it was paid under judgments, and in the other 
 instance under orders made and entered by the Court in actions regularly pending in it, 
 and there prosecuted for the recovery of certain sums of money, to a person who 
 appeared and was recognized as, and adjudicated to be, one of the attorneys for the 
 plaintiffs; that is to say, the Attorney-General of the State. The jurisdiction of the 
 Court over the parties and subject-matter is not questioned. Manifestly, therefore, it 
 cannot be held that any judgment or order made by that Court, directing that the 
 plaintiff recover a less sum than that claimed, is void. And not being void, it is con- 
 clusive upon us. Nor can we consider the right of the Attorney-General to appear as 
 attorney for the people in the actions commenced by the Controller. The Court in 
 which the cases were heard decided that he had the right so to appear, and recognized 
 him as such attorney, and its judgment in that regard is as binding as in any other. 
 So, too, with respect to the stipulations upon which the judgments in the one class of 
 cases and the orders in the other class were made and entered. It is not for us to say 
 that they were insufficient as a basis upon which to enter the judgments and orders. 
 That was a matter for the Court having jurisdiction of the case, subject to correction on 
 appeal if error was committed. 
 
 "We have therefore the case of an attorney who has received certain moneys under 
 judgments and orders recovered by him in actions he was prosecuting. It legally 
 follows, we think, that the money so received is the property of those whom he repre- 
 sented in receiving it. 
 
 " Let the writs issue as prayed for in so far as concerns the moneys received by the 
 Attorney-General under the orders made in the cases prosecuted for the delinquent 
 taxes for the fiscal years 1883-84 and 1884-85, and in so far as concerns the moneys by him 
 received for the State under the judgments rendered in the actions prosecuted for the 
 delinquent taxes for the fiscal years 1880-81, 1881-82, and 1882-83." 
 
 The taxes for the fiscal years mentioned in the above opinion were 
 due and payable in the years 1880, 1881, 1882, 1883, and 1884, as shown 
 by statements 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Appendix hereof. 
 
 The effect of the said decision was that the judgments therein referred 
 to were held not void and that it was the duty of the State Controller 
 to certify said moneys into the State Treasury. They were paid in, as 
 set forth on page 7 hereof. 
 
15 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 There are yet due and unpaid from the Southern Pacific and Central 
 Pacific systems of reads, after giving credit for all suidh of money paid 
 in. on account of said taxes, the following Minis: 
 
 State and count v taxes, 1880, 1881, mm. I LB89 -. $416,262 28 
 
 Stan- and county taxes, 1883 222,26133 
 
 1 county taxes, 1884 323,852 49 
 
 Total. $962,366 10 
 
 The above total does not include interest or penalties. 
 
 If the agreed judgments entered ID the United States Circuit Court, 
 in the cases transferred thereto, in reference to these taxes, and tin; set- 
 tlement with Attorney-General Marshall are to be considered as binding 
 and conclusive, it is questionable whether the State can ever recover 
 any portion of the above amount of delinquent taxes by reassessment, 
 for it cannot be said that the assessments were so void that the Legis- 
 lature could of right direct or authorize a reassessment for those years. 
 
 I have nothing to add regarding Attorney-General Marshall's conduct 
 in those cases; the statements made by Controller Dunn in his official 
 reports regarding said litigation are a sufficient commentary thereon. 
 
 SECOND. 
 
 Taxes for the Years 1885 to 1887 Inclusive, no Part of Wiikii 
 
 Has Been Paid. 
 
 No portion of the taxes of 1885, 1886, and 1887, against the Central 
 Pacific and Southern Pacific systems of roads operated in more than 
 one county, has been paid. For the purpose of comparison I have 
 prepared tabulated statements showing the mileage, assessed value per 
 mile in the respective counties, and the amount of State and county 
 taxe3 levied against the roads for the years above mentioned as well as 
 for the years subsequent to 1887, which statements are numbered from 
 6 to 13, inclusive, in the Appendix hereof. 
 
 The State Controller, in his report for the thirty-eighth and thirty- 
 ninth fiscal years, page 25, in reference to the taxes previous to and 
 including the year 1887, declared: 
 
 "For all these years [from 1880 to 1887, inclusive] the Central and Southern Pacific 
 Railroad Companies, and certain branches controlled by them, have refused, and still 
 refuse, to nay the taxes levied upon them by law, and the very large amounts thus not 
 collected have caused serious disarrangement to the finances of the State, and of the 
 several counties through which they run. The total amount due from these companies, 
 representing the face of the tax from 1883 to 1887, inclusive, aggregates $2,547,700 61. 
 
 "This statement omits the amount due for 1880, 1881, and 1882, as this office has not 
 the data for ascertaining the exact unpaid amounts. 
 
 "Actions were brought to recover the delinquent taxes for all these years [1880 to 1887, 
 inclusive] except for 1887. But for this latter year, after advising with the Attorney- 
 general [Geo. A. Johnson], none were begun. 
 
 I !m history of these railroad tax suits is one presenting deceit, misrepresentation, 
 and false and fraudulent records upon the part of the Central and Southern Pacific Com- 
 panies. In the cases of 1884 against these companies, the United States Circuit Court 
 findings show that the State Board of Equalization assessed to the railroads the fences 
 along the lines of the roads, and also the distance across the bay of San Francisco, a 
 nice of four miles of the railroads. 
 
 testimony was introduced on the trial to prove any such assessments. The State 
 
 I of Equalization did not assess either the fences or the distance across the bay 
 
 i Francisco, and yet, in the face of this fact, the then Attorney-General 
 
 I .. < Marshall] permitted this record to be made a part of the findings of the Court. 
 
16 
 
 " It is a significant fact, in this connection, that the decision rendered against the State 
 by the Supreme Court of the United States in a similar railroad tax case, was based upon 
 the fact that the findings showed that the (former) State Board of Equalization had 
 assessed the fences along the lines of the roads thus putting these cases in the identi- 
 cal condition of those already decided against the State by the Supreme Court of the 
 United States, and rendering it worse than useless to appeal them. 
 
 "In a letter addressed to the Attorney-General [E. C. Marshall], on the eighteenth day 
 of June, 1886, I called his especial attention to the false condition of the record. This 
 false and fraudulent record was, by him, allowed to remain as part of the record, without 
 any attempt on his part, so far as I am aware, to correct it, even after his attention had 
 been called to it by myself in a public communication. 
 
 "This false record was presented to the United States Supreme Court as .a true state- 
 ment of facts in the case. Of course, in view of the Supreme Court's previous decision, 
 there could be but one result to an issue so presented, and the State lost her cases. 
 
 "In my last report I predicted this result in the following language: 'The false 
 findings m the United States Circuit Court must be corrected, or the State will lose every 
 cent of the taxes shown to be due. This office is powerless to accomplish it, as the 
 United States Circuit Court recognizes only the Attorney-General as clothed with the 
 right to control the cases. Can it be that a great State vested with all the attributes 
 of inherent power and sovereignty can be thus pillaged of her rights without the 
 possibility of undoing the outrage? ' 
 
 "It is strange that the great State of California has been debarred by these companies 
 from presenting to the Supreme Court of the United States for adjudication a correct 
 and truthful record of her railroad assessments. 
 
 "The present head of the law department of these railroad companies has time after- 
 time given out publicly the statement that he was only too anxious to submit these 
 cases on their merits to the Court of last resort; and yet the department over which he 
 presides has resorted to the use of false and fraudulent records to mislead the Court, 
 and prevent the cases from being heard on their merits. 
 
 "The effect of this successful legal chicanery makes itself felt severely in the finances 
 of the State and the several interested counties, the total amount due for all the named 
 years being the large sum of $2,547,700 61. Of this amount there is due to the State the 
 sum of $946,765 81, of which $556,615 44 is due to the General Fund; $316,199 59 to the 
 School Fund; $69,778 80 to the Interest and Sinking Fund, and $4,171 98 to the State 
 University Fund. 
 
 In the report of ex-Controller Dunn last above referred to it is stated: 
 "Actions were brought to recover the delinquent taxes for all these 
 years, except for the year 1887; but for this latter year, after advising 
 with the Attorney-General, none were commenced." 
 
 On the part of both Mr. Dunn and Mr. Johnson, the then Attorney- 
 General, such non-action has proved, in my judgment, to have been a 
 mistake; for if the Controller was correct in his conclusion that 
 Attorney-General Marshall had not presented a case covering the facts, 
 it is very strange that when another Attorney-General was in office 
 the Controller should have deemed it unnecessary to bring new suits, 
 by which the facts could have been presented as he claimed they 
 existed, and a decision had on the merits. I presume, however, that 
 Mr. Dunn had reasons which in his judgment warranted him in pursu- 
 ing this course. The suits were eventually brought by Attorney- 
 General Johnson, as hereinafter set out. 
 
 I am informed that at least 60 per cent of the taxes for 1885 and 
 1886 would have been paid into the State Treasury by the railroad 
 companies had Mr. Dunn been willing to certify that proportion into 
 the State Treasury on account of said taxes, but I understand he refused 
 to do so. 
 
 From a perusal of Controller Dunn's reports I would infer and 
 it is fair to presume that during the latter part of 1884 and the 
 years of 1885 and 1886 Mr. Dunn and Mr. Marshall were so much 
 taken up with their controversy over what was correct procedure in 
 the railroad tax matters that the railroad companies were practically 
 undisturbed and were not pushed in due season for the taxes of 1885 
 and 1886. 
 
lUNIVERSIT ' 
 
 No doubt Mr. Dunn believed In -lit and that it was for the 
 
 interests of the State net to receive partial payments on account 
 
 of railroad taxes, and his refusal to certify such moneys int. the State 
 
 Treasury was probably based upon the idea that by Bach refusal the 
 
 companies would he compelled to pay the lull amount, and that to 
 
 t less thai! the full amount would be establishing a pn 
 dent permitting the companies to determine for themselves the 
 amount of taxes they would pay without reference to any tax levy 
 by the State. On the other hand, Attorney-! Jeneral Marshall believed 
 that whatever he received on account of the taxes would be so much 
 gained for the State, and that the stipulations he had obtained warranted 
 him taking such money, the same to be considered as payments on 
 mt; hut unfortunately Mr. Marshall allowed judgments to be 
 taken against the State, which were not void, and also allowed judg- 
 ments for stipulated amounts, which of course could not be set aside, 
 whatever the rights of the State may have been, which fully appears in 
 the decision of the Supreme Court in Rooney vs. Marshall, supra. In 
 my opinion, Mr. Marshall, as Attorney-General, was overreached in the 
 matter of railroad tax litigation. 
 
 Taxes of 1885. 
 
 Suits were brought by the People of the State, ex rel. Controller 
 Dunn, against the Central Pacific Railroad and other companies, to re- 
 cover the taxes of 1885. The cases were transferred to the United States 
 Circuit Court for the Ninth Circuit, District of California, and judg- 
 ments were rendered therein against the State in all the cases; stipula- 
 tions were signed by the Attorney-General that four of the cases should 
 abide the result of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
 States in the suit of the People vs. Central Pacific Railroad Company 
 which was then appealed. This was unfortunate for the State, for the 
 point assessment of a Federal franchise involved in the case ap- 
 pealed was not involved in the four cases not appealed. The judg- 
 ment in the case appealed being affirmed by the Court of last resort, the 
 four cases mentioned were also affirmed by reason of said stipulation. 
 Judgment was thus rendered against the People in all the tax suits for 
 that year (1885); but when it was discovered that the decision of the 
 United States Supreme Court in People vs. Central Pacific Railroad 
 turned upon the question of the assessment by the State of a Federal 
 franchise, it was agreed by Attorney-General Johnson and the attorneys 
 for the railroad companies that the judgment entered in the case of the 
 People vs. San Pablo and Tulare Railroad Company, one of the four 
 cases, should be set aside and new findings drawn, presenting the 
 question whether the Constitution of this State conflicts in any 
 particular with the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the 
 Constitution of the United States, in reference to the taxation of rail- 
 roads operated in more than one county. Such findings were submitted 
 and judgment was entered thereon against the People, by Circuit Judge 
 Sawyer; whereupon Attorney-General Johnson sued out a writ of error 
 in said action to the Supreme Court of the United States, which action 
 is still pending before that Court. The railroad company here con- 
 sented to set aside a judgment in its favor in the San Pablo case in 
 2 
 
18 
 
 order to present a case which would presumably test, in the United 
 States Supreme Court, the constitutionality of our mode of taxation of 
 railroads. 
 
 Taxes of 1886. 
 
 In the meantime Attorney-General Johnson brought actions in the 
 name of the People against the Southern and Central Pacific Railroads, 
 and other companies, in the Superior Court of the City and County of 
 San Francisco, for the taxes of 1886. The defendants were served; 
 they appeared, and filed demurrers on various grounds, raising tech- 
 nical and constitutional objections. After argument, Judge Levy, before 
 whom the cases were heard, sustained the demurrers, and the Attorney- 
 General, instead of amending the complaints to cure the objections 
 made by the demurrers, stood on the demurrers, and appealed to the 
 Supreme Court of the State of California, where the cases were heard 
 and determined. Decision was rendered by Mr. Justice Fox, and is 
 reported in 83 Cal. 393. The State Supreme Court sustained the lower 
 Court, holding that the form of complaint used was not good; that the 
 statute allowing such a. form of complaint was unconstitutional and 
 was a special enactment prescribing a special mode of practice. This 
 decision was rendered a few days preceding the time that the case of 
 People vs. San Pablo and Tulare Railroad Company was reached for 
 hearing by the United States Supreme Court, and upon a telegraphic 
 communication of that decision to Washington, D. C, the latter Court 
 declined to hear the case because of our Supreme Court refusing to 
 sustain the action upon the form of complaint adopted for the recovery 
 of the taxes of 1886. The people of this State were thereby prevented 
 from obtaining a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
 upon the question of conflict of our Constitution with the Federal Con- 
 stitution in the provisions of the former regarding the mode of taxa- 
 tion of railroads operated in more than one county. Thus by either 
 unforeseen or prearranged circumstances, the people of this State have 
 not for a period of twelve years had the opportunity of presenting to 
 the Supreme Court of the United States the merits of our Constitution 
 in reference to the taxation of railroads operated in more than one 
 county; and 'as matter of fact the Supreme Court of the United States, 
 in pursuance of an invariable rule not to consider Federal constitu- 
 tional questions where the State Supreme Court had virtually disposed 
 of the matters involved upon statutory construction, still refuse to 
 take up or pass upon the case of the People vs. San Pablo and Tulare 
 Railroad Company, pending on writ of error in that Court, because of 
 the decision of our Supreme Court in the case reported in 83 Cal., p. 
 393, affirming Judge Levy's decision as to the informality of the 
 complaints filed to recover the taxes of 1886. 
 
 Taxes of 1887. 
 
 Some two weeks before assuming my official duties I investigated 
 the form of complaint which had been passed upon by the Supreme 
 Court of this State in the case of The People vs. C. P. R. R. Co., 83 Cal. 
 393. I found that the suits brought by my predecessor for taxes of 
 1887 were upon complaints similar in form to those adversely passed 
 upon in the case cited, and I determined that a new form of complaint 
 
19 
 
 should be adopted, in order that a decision of the Supreme Court of fchifl 
 State might l- bad upon the constitutional provisions of this State in 
 reference l< the assessment of railroads operated in more than one 
 
 ooonty, without being hampered by technicalities as to the form of the 
 pleading. Accordingly, three days before taking oflice, I had n< w 
 amended complaints tiled by the associate counsel, for the taxes of 1887. 
 were briefed and submitted to the Hon. J. P. Hoge, one of 
 the Superior Judges of the City and County of San Francisco, hut he 
 died before passing upon the demurrers interposed by defendants. His 
 successor, Judge Hebbard, heard argument upon the demurrers, and, 
 after due consideration, overruled them. 
 
 The trial of the suits for these taxes was commenced before Judge 
 Hebbard of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, 
 on the 9th day of January 1893, and will be taken up for argument 
 before the Court on the 19th instant. 
 
 The Central Pacific Railroad Company and the Southern Pacific 
 Railroad Company defend the actions on the ground that the Federal 
 franchise was included in the assessment for the taxes of 1887; the 
 defense in the suits brought against the other roads, four in number, 
 being that the provisions of the State Constitution regarding the tax- 
 ation of railroads operated in more than one county are null and void, 
 for the reason that there is no provision for the deduction of mortgages 
 upon said roads. 
 
 From my examination of these questions I am certain that the pro- 
 visions of our Constitution upon the subject of railroad taxation are not 
 in violation of the Federal Constitution; and on this point, for your con- 
 venience I refer to and quote from the following decisions: 
 
 In the Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U. S. 337, the authority of 
 the Legislature to classify property for the purpose of taxation is sus- 
 tained; and it is said that: 
 
 "The rule of equality in respect to the subject only requires the same means and 
 methods to be applied impartially to all the constituents of each class, so that the law 
 shall operate equally and uniformly upon all persons in similar circumstances." 
 
 It is true that the Kentucky statute places all railroads in one class, 
 distinct from the property of other corporations, for the purpose of 
 taxation, but the right to classify property for that purpose is sanctioned 
 by that decision, and the decision places no restriction on the discretion 
 of the Legislature, as to the basis upon which different classes may be 
 constituted. 
 
 It is stated in the opinion, page 337, that there is nothing in the Con- 
 stitution of Kentucky that requires taxes to be levied by a uniform 
 method upon all descriptions of property. Neither is there anything 
 in the Constitution of California requiring uniformity of method in 
 levying taxes. 
 
 In that opinion it is further stated that " the whole matter is left to 
 the discretion of the legislative power, and there is nothing to forbid the 
 classification of property for the purposes of taxation and the valuation 
 of different classes by different methods." 
 
 The same can be said of the Constitution of this State; and when the 
 Constitution itself has made railroads operated in more than one 
 county a class for one purpose for the purpose of assessment there is 
 nothing unreasonable in the Legislature adopting that classification in the 
 further proceedings connected with the levying and collection of taxes. 
 
20 
 
 The authority to enact laws applicable to a class is sustained in 
 Abeel et at. vs. Clark, 84 Cal. 226, where the law was upheld as being 
 constitutional, which provided for the vaccination of children attending 
 the public schools, and for the exclusion therefrom of unvaccinated 
 children. It is said in the opinion, page 213, that, " An act to be 
 general in its scope need not include all classes of individuals in the 
 State; it answers the constitutional requirement if it relates to and 
 operates uniformly upon the whole of any single class." 
 
 In Pullman's Car Company vs. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18, the Court 
 said: 
 
 "In the State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575, it was adjudged that a statute of Illinois, 
 by which a tax on the entire taxable property of a railroad corporation, including its 
 rolling stock, capital, and franchise, was assessed by the State Board of Equalization, 
 and was collected in each municipality in proportion to the length of the road within 
 it, was lawful, and not in conflict with the Constitution of the State, and Mr. Justice 
 Miller, delivering judgment, said: 
 
 " 'Another objection to the system of taxation by the State is, that the rolling stock, 
 capital stock, and franchise are personal property, and that this, with all other personal 
 property, has a local situs at the principal place of business of the corporation, and can 
 be taxed by no other county, city, or town but the one where it is so situated. This 
 objection is, based upon the general rule of law that personal property, as to its situs, 
 follows the domicile of its owner. It may be doubted, very reasonably, whether such a 
 rule can be applied to a railroad corporation as between the different localities embraced 
 by its line of road. But, after all, the rule is merely the law of the State which recog- 
 nizes it; and when it is called into operation as to property located in one State and 
 owned by a resident of another, it is a rule of comity in the former State rather than 
 an absolute principle in all cases. (Green vs. Von Buskirk, 5 Wall. 312.) Like all other 
 laws of a State it is therefore subject to legislative repeal, modification, or limitation; 
 and when the Legislature of Illinois declared that it should not prevail in assessing 
 personal property of railroad companies for taxation, it simply exercised an ordinary 
 function of legislation. (92 IT. S. 607, 608.) 
 
 "'It is further objected that the railroad track, capital stock, and franchise is not 
 assessed in each county where it lies, according to its value there, but according to an 
 aggregate value of the whole, on which each county, city, and town collects taxes 
 according to the length of the track within its limits. It may well be doubted whether 
 any better mode of determining the value of that portion of the track within any one 
 county has been devised, than to ascertain the value of the whole road, and apportion 
 the value '(not the property) 'within the county by its relative length to the whole. 
 This Court has expressly held in two cases, where the road of a corporation ran through 
 different States, that a tax upon the income or franchise of the road was properly 
 apportioned by taking the whole income, or value of the franchise, and the length of 
 the road within each State, as the basis of taxation.' ( Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. 
 206 ; Erie Railroad vs. Pennsylvania, 21 Wall. 492; 92 U. S. 608, 611.)" 
 
 In the case of Pacific Express Co. vs. Seibert, State Auditor, et al., 
 decided by the United States Supreme Court, January 4, 1892, and 
 reported in Vol. 142 of U. S. Reports, page 339, said doctrine is again 
 affirmed and laid down. At page 253, the Court say: 
 
 "This Court has repeatedly laid down the doctrine that diversity of taxation, both 
 with respect to the amount imposed and the various species of property selected, either 
 for bearing its burdens or for being exempt from them, is not inconsistent with a perfect 
 uniformity and equality of taxation in the proper sense of those terms. * * * 
 
 "The rules of taxation, in this respect, were well stated in the opinion of the Court, 
 delivered by Mr. Justice Bradlev, Railroad Company vs. Pennsylvania, 134 II. S. 232, 237, 
 10 Sup. Ct. Hep. 533, as follows: 
 
 "'The provision in the fourteenth amendment, that no State shall deny to any person 
 within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, was not intended to prevent a 
 State from adjusting its system of taxation in all proper and reasonable ways. It may, 
 if it chooses, exempt certain classes of property from any taxation at all, such as 
 churches, libraries, and the property of charitable institutions. It may impose different 
 specific taxes upon different trades and professions, and may vary the rates of excise 
 upon various products. It may tax real estate and personal property in a different 
 manner. It may tax visible property only, and not tax securities for payment of 
 money. It may allow deductions for indebtedness, or not allow them. * * * It 
 would, however, be impracticable and unwise to attempt to lay down any general rule 
 or definition on the subject that would include all cases. They must be decided as they 
 arise. We think that we are safe in saying that the fourteenth amendment was not 
 intended to compel the State to adopt an iron rule of equal taxation. If that were its 
 
21 
 
 proper construction, it would not onlv supersede all those constitutional provisions 
 an.l laws of some of the States whose obiect is to secure equality of taxation, and 
 which are usually accompanied with qualification* deemed mat. -rial, but it would 
 render nugatory those discrimination! which the beat interests of m luire, 
 
 which arc necessary tor the enoouragemenl ol needed and useful industries and the 
 
 ment of "intemperance and vice, and Which every State, in DIM tot r 
 
 another, deems 11 expedient to adopt." 
 
 In tin- case of 1 ,i>n ra ncr OompOnV vs. \r,r )',,,/.. L34 I EL, >>i, 006, 607, 10 8up. Ot, Rep. 
 
 Lng through Mr. Justice Field, said: T.nt t he amendment (the 
 
 fourteenth) does not prevent the classification of property for taxation subject in 
 
 kin. I of property to one rate of taxation, and another kind of property to a different 
 
 rate distinguishing between franchises, licenses, and privileges, and visible and t. 
 ble property, and between real and persona] property. Nor does the amendment pro 
 hihit special legislation. Indeed, the greater pari of all legislation is special! either in 
 lent to which it operates, or the objects sought to he obtained by it; and when 
 such legislation applies to artificial bodies, it is not open to objection if all such bodies 
 
 are treated alike, under similar circumstances and conditions, in respect to the privi- 
 leges con fcrred upon them and the liabilities to which they are subjected. Inderthe 
 Statute Of New York, all corporations, joint-stock companies, and associations of tin- 
 same kind are subjected to the same tax". There is the same rule applica ble to all, under 
 the same conditions, in determining the rate of taxation. There is no disoriminatioii 
 
 in favor of one against another of the same (lass." Citing a long list of authorities." 
 
 The face of total taxes due and unpaid for the years 1885, 1886, and 
 1887, by the Central and Southern Pacific systems is as follows: 
 
 1885 - $715,363 93 
 
 1886 648,957 05 
 
 1887 - 647,439 20 
 
 Total - - ^2,011,760 18 
 
 hitTerence between this amount and that mentioned in Controller's 
 report for forty-second and forty-third fiscal years, page 29, is made up as 
 follows, viz.: Taxes of North Pacific Coast Railroad for 1885, $5,339 38; 
 for 1886, .115,602 17; making in all $20,941 51 improperly included or 
 charged to the Southern Pacific system of railroads. 
 
 THIRD. 
 Taxks from 1888 to 1892, inclusive ; Paid in Full. 
 
 Since 1887 the railroad companies have not claimed that the Federal 
 franchise has been assessed, and, by reason of the foregoing authorities, 
 they have also practically abandoned the defense of conflict of the State 
 Constitution with the fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution, 
 in reference to the assessment of railroads operated in more than one 
 county and in reference to the deduction of railroad mortgages, as fully 
 shown from the fact that the companies have promptly and fully paid 
 all taxes levied since 1887. 
 
 In view of the decisions above cited and the offer of the Railroads, 
 through their attorney, Mr. Craig, to pay in full all taxes, penalties, 
 interest, and costs in the case of People vs. San Pablo and Tulare Rail- 
 road Company, now pending in the United States Supreme Court, I 
 think that litigation in this State arising out of the levy of taxes upon 
 railroads is practically ended, except as to the taxes remaining unpaid. 
 U an adjustment of these taxes can be made, the people will no longer 
 be burdened with litigation in reference to taxation of railroad com- 
 panies. 
 
22 
 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 The companies insist that previous to 1887 the Federal franchises 
 were included in the assessment, and hence invalidated all assessments 
 made by the State Board of Equalization. This, however, can apply 
 only to the "Central Pacific Railroad Company" and "Southern Pacific 
 Railroad Company " roads proper, for they are the only railroad cor- 
 porations in California which ever had or claimed a Federal franchise. 
 None of the branches or roads of other corporations operated by these 
 companies in this State ever had a Federal franchise; no defense of that 
 character was ever made to any of the suits brought for taxes levied 
 upon said branch roads. It may therefore be considered strange that 
 my predecessors should have permitted the question of the taxation of 
 a Federal franchise to interfere with the suits brought against the branch 
 roads of the Southern Pacific and Central Pacific systems. 
 
 The companies also contend that previous to 1887 they were assessed 
 at too great a value per mile for the number of miles of road within the 
 State. Therefore, I have prepared a table showing the total assessed 
 value of all property in the State for each year from 1880 to 1892, 
 inclusive; also the total assessed value of the railroad companies for 
 those years and the proportion of the valuation of railroads as compared 
 with the assessed value of all the property in the State, together with 
 the State rate of taxes, viz.: 
 
 STATEMENT 
 
 Showing the total assessed value of all property assessed in the State, and what portion 
 thereof was assessed to railroads and the percentage of the railroad assessments as com- 
 pared with the whole. 
 
 Year. 
 
 State Rate 
 
 of 
 Taxation. 
 
 Total Assessed 
 
 Value of all 
 
 Property in the 
 
 State. 
 
 Total Assessed 
 
 Value of all 
 
 Railroads in the 
 
 State. 
 
 Percentage 
 of Railroad 
 Assess- 
 ments. 
 
 1880 
 
 .64 
 
 .655 
 
 .596 
 
 .497 
 
 .452 
 
 .544 
 
 .56 
 
 .608 
 
 .504 
 
 .722 
 
 .58 
 
 .446 
 
 .434 
 
 $666,202,674 00 
 
 658,691,059 00 
 
 607,472,762 00 
 
 764,763,559 00 
 
 821,604,703 00 
 
 859,779,423 00 
 
 817,445,729 00 
 
 956,740,805 00 
 
 1,107,952,700 00 
 
 1,111,550,979 00 
 
 1,101,137,290 00 
 
 1,239,647,063 00 
 
 1,275,816,228 00 
 
 $31,174,120 00 
 34,829,668 00 
 27,602,313 00 
 40,017,000 00 
 50,746,500 00 
 49,035,750 00 
 48,051,100 00 
 47,673,453 00 
 43,242,652 00 
 40,488,652 00 
 40,198,652 00 
 41,414,000 00 
 41,976,000 00 
 
 4.68 
 
 1881 
 
 5.29 
 
 1882 
 
 4.54 
 
 1883 
 
 5.23 
 
 1884 
 
 1885 
 
 6.1 
 
 5.7 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 5.8 
 4.9 
 
 1888 
 
 3.90 
 
 1889 
 
 3.64 
 
 1890 
 
 3.64 
 
 1891 
 
 3.34 
 
 1892 
 
 3.29 
 
 
 
 [Note. See Controller's Report for 1888, pages 21 to 27. The above includes all rail- 
 roads then in the State other than street car lines.] 
 
23 
 
 The statement following shows the total taxes of the Central Pacific 
 and Southern Pacific systems of railroad from 1880 to 1892, including 
 county taxes, except for the years 1880, 1881, and 1882: 
 
 Year. 
 
 State Tax. 
 
 County Tax 
 
 Total. 
 
 1 SSI 1 
 
 $181,364 90 
 
 L76,486 00 
 209,060 <mi 
 240,448 00 
 
 L': ',s,r> ( ;<> .hi 
 26832 m 
 174,610 00 
 245,480 00 
 194,300 00 
 151,640 00 
 147,047 88 
 
 # 
 
 * 
 $375,104 75 
 444,323 12 
 474,915 93 
 410,397 06 
 881,207 20 
 :;..lmi<; <m 
 314,876 21 
 
 :U2.7!>:; 88 
 326,651 52 
 
 * 
 
 issi 
 
 
 1882 
 
 
 L888 
 
 $661,539 75 
 
 l^t .. 
 
 663,373 12 
 
 1886 
 
 715,363 93 
 
 1886 
 
 (IIS.!).',? 06 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 647,439 20 
 476,626 90 
 
 1888 - 
 
 560,356 21 
 
 1890 
 
 508,218 07 
 
 1891 
 
 494,433 66 
 
 1892 .. 
 
 473,699 40 
 
 
 
 Totals. 
 
 $2,576,352 65 
 
 $3,696,304 41 
 
 $6,272,657 06 
 
 
 * Unable to give; no records in office of Controller or State Hoard of Equalization on this subject. 
 
 The county tiixos levied upon said roads for these three years are estimated to aggregate $1,147,700 
 
 A portion of such taxes were paid under settlements and compromises made with Boards oi Super 
 
 of various counties, as set forth on page 5 hereof. I have, however, in this report stated the 
 
 correct amount of both State and county taxes remaining unpaid for each year. 
 
 The following tables show the years the roads were assessed, the mile- 
 age operated, amount of assessed value per mile, total assessment, total 
 tax of each railroad separately, and State rate of taxation : 
 
 California Pacific Railroad. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Miles 
 Operated. 
 
 Amount 
 
 per Mile. 
 
 Total 
 Assessment. 
 
 Total Taxes 
 
 State Kate 
 of Taxation 
 on each $100. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 1880... . 
 1881.... 
 1882.... 
 1883 ... 
 1884.... 
 1885. 
 1886.... 
 1887 . 
 1888.... 
 1889 . 
 1890. 
 1891.... 
 
 112.50 
 112.50 
 112.50 
 112.50 
 112.50 
 112.50 
 112.50 
 112.50 
 112.50 
 112.50 
 112.50 
 112.50 
 112.50 
 
 $29,889 40 
 24,000 00 
 17,777 77 
 17,777 77 
 22,222 22 
 22,222 22 
 22,222 22 
 22,222 22 
 22,222 22 
 17,777 77 
 
 $1,801,300 
 l.so.;.jf,.i 
 1,462,500 
 1,800,000 
 2,000,000 
 2,000,000 
 2,000,000 
 2,500,000 
 2,500,000 
 2,500,000 
 2,500,000 
 2,500,000 
 2,000,000 
 
 $25,967 61 
 27,801 70 
 28,859 21 
 28,985 57 
 37,015 45 
 33,623 22 
 38,994 14 
 35,037 24 
 31,791 52 
 23,795 92 
 
 .64 
 
 .<;.v, 
 
 .596 
 
 .497 
 
 .452 
 
 .544 
 
 .56 
 
 .608 
 
 .504 
 
 .722 
 
 .58 
 
 .446 
 
 .434 
 
 } Compromised 
 
 by 
 E. C. Marshall. 
 
 Not paid. 
 
 Not paid. 
 
 Not paid. 
 
 Paid. 
 
 Paid. 
 
 Paid. 
 
 ...Paid. 
 
 First installm't paid. 
 
24 
 
 
 
 
 Central Pacific Railroad. 
 
 V 
 
 Year. 
 
 Miles 
 Operated. 
 
 Amount 
 
 Assessed 
 per Mile. 
 
 Total 
 Assessment. 
 
 Total Taxes. 
 
 State Rate 
 of Taxation 
 on each $100. 
 
 ' 
 
 1880 
 
 
 
 $12,239,456 
 15,055,500 
 13,010,520 
 18,000,000 
 24,000,000 
 22,000,000 
 20,000,000 
 18,000,000 
 15,000,000 
 13,000,000 
 13,000,000 
 13,000,000 
 13,000,000 
 
 
 .64 
 
 65| 
 
 .596 
 
 .497 
 
 .452 
 
 .544 
 
 .56 
 
 .608 
 
 .504 
 
 .722 
 
 .58 
 
 .446 
 
 .434 
 
 ^ 
 
 1881.... 
 
 
 
 
 Compromised 
 
 t by 
 
 E. C. Marshall. 
 Not paid. 
 
 1882.... 
 
 
 
 
 1883 
 1884.... 
 1885 
 
 602.22 
 626.22 
 640.68 
 640.68 
 719.15 
 747.14 
 746.76 
 746.76 
 746.76 
 746.76 
 
 $29,889 40 
 38,312 95 
 34,338 51 
 31,216 83 
 25,017 37 
 20,076 55 
 17,408 53 
 17,408 53 
 17,408 53 
 17,408 53 
 
 $276,865 10 
 339,956 61 
 375,013 61 
 315,048 04 
 295,740 71 
 218,312 76 
 222,401 35 
 205,421 43 
 193,584 88 
 191,410 32 
 
 1886 
 
 ...Not paid. 
 
 1887 
 
 .Not paid. 
 
 1888.... 
 
 Paid. 
 
 1889 
 
 Paid. 
 
 1890... . 
 
 ..Paid. 
 
 1891.... 
 
 . Paid. 
 
 1892.... 
 
 First installm't paid. 
 
 Northern Railway. 
 
 1880 
 1881... 
 1882 ... 
 1883... 
 1884... 
 1885 
 1886 ... 
 1887 ... 
 1888... 
 1889... 
 1890 
 1891 
 1892 ... 
 
 148.40 
 148.40 
 148.40 
 148.40 
 148.40 
 148.40 
 385.25 
 385.25 
 385.25 
 385.25 
 
 $13,477 08 
 
 15,498 65 
 
 15,498 65 
 
 18,194 07 
 
 20,215 63 
 
 14,993 26 
 
 9,085 00 
 
 7,789 15 
 
 7,787 15 
 
 8,000 00 
 
 $1,492,758 
 1,543,050 
 1,143,000 
 2,000,000 
 2,300,000 
 2,300,000 
 2,700,000 
 3,000,000 
 2,225,000 
 3,500,000 
 3,000,000 
 3,000,000 
 3,082,000 
 
 $28,955 23 
 30,680 21 
 31,499 95 
 37,211 95 
 41,483 45 
 27,640 09 
 54,080 56 
 41,278 71 
 39,918 46 
 40,037 74 
 
 .64 
 
 65| 
 
 .596 
 
 .497 
 
 .452 
 
 .544 
 
 .56 
 
 .608 
 
 .504 
 
 .722 
 
 .58 
 
 .446 
 
 .434 
 
 Compromised 
 
 \ by 
 
 E.C. Marshall. 
 
 Not paid. 
 
 ._ ...Not paid. 
 
 Not paid. 
 
 ...Paid. 
 
 Paid. 
 
 Paid. 
 
 Paid. 
 
 First installm't paid. 
 
 San Pablo and Tulare Railroad. 
 
 1880 
 1881. ... 
 1882.... 
 1883 
 1884 
 1885 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 1889* 
 
 46.00 
 46.00 
 46.00 
 46.00 
 46.00 
 46.00 
 46.00 
 46.00 
 46.00 
 
 $15,217 39 
 20,652 17 
 19,565 21 
 
 19.564 21 
 
 19.565 21 
 19,565 21 
 
 $492,800 
 552,000 
 460,000 
 700,000 
 950,000 
 900,000 
 900,000 
 900,000 
 900,000 
 
 $10,074 76 
 10,383 90 
 10,702 17 
 11,187 38 
 11,886 85 
 10,294 23 
 
 .64 
 
 65! 
 
 .596 
 
 .497 
 
 .452 
 
 .544 
 
 .56 
 
 .608 
 
 .504 
 
 Compromised 
 by 
 
 E. C. Marshall. 
 
 .Not paid. 
 .Not paid. 
 .Not paid. 
 Paid. 
 
 Absorbed by Southern Pacific. 
 
 Southern Pacific Railroad. 
 
 1880 
 1881.... 
 1882.... 
 1883. 
 1884.... 
 1885... 
 1886.... 
 1887 
 1888.... 
 1889.... 
 1890 
 1891... 
 1892.... 
 
 870.74 
 
 957.02 
 
 957.02 
 
 957.02 
 
 1,022.33 
 
 1,022.35 
 
 1,493.77 
 
 1,522 50 
 
 1,654 87 
 
 1,701.40 
 
 $14,929 82 
 
 17,763 47 
 
 17,763 47 
 
 17,763 47 
 
 16,139 60 
 
 13,694 20 
 
 10,041 70 
 
 9,852 21 
 
 9,366 29 
 
 9,286 47 
 
 $10,483,518 
 11,739,915 
 8,226,135 
 13,000,000 
 17,000,000 
 17,000,000 
 17,000,000 
 16,500,000 
 14,000,000 
 15,000,000 
 15,000,000 
 15,500,000 
 15,800,000 
 
 
 
 
 $209,677 15 
 
 244,550 70 
 
 269,289 13 
 
 256,524 11 
 
 251,134 26 
 
 186,756 60 
 
 244,880 16 
 
 226,480 69 
 
 229,138 80 
 
 218,455 42 
 
 .64 
 
 .65J 
 
 .596 
 
 .497 
 
 .452 
 
 .544 
 
 .56 
 
 .608 
 
 .504 
 
 .722 
 
 .58 
 
 .446 
 
 .434 
 
 Compromised 
 ) by 
 
 E. C. Marshall. 
 
 Not paid. 
 
 Not paid. 
 
 Not paid. 
 
 Paid. 
 
 Paid. 
 
 Paid. 
 
 Paid. 
 
 First installm't paid. 
 
25 
 
 fibtttA Raogfe Otafl linilroad. 
 
 
 Opttfcd. ^ Ml!( , 
 
 Tolal 
 
 Assessment. 
 
 TOttJ Tnxrs. 
 
 of Taxation 
 on each $hh. 
 
 1887 
 
 45.30 $16,558 29 
 
 1750,000 
 
 $10,178 48 
 
 Not paid. 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 I. 
 
 The total amount of State and county taxes due from the Southern 
 Pacific and Central Pacific railroad systems on account of the face of 
 tin taxes remaining unpaid is as follows: 
 
 State and county taxes for 1880, 1881, and 1882 $416,252 28 
 
 Mate and county taxes for 1883 222,251 33 
 
 ite and county taxes for 1884 323,852 49 
 
 ite and county taxes for 1885 715,363 93 
 
 ite and county taxes for 1886 648,957 05 
 
 State and county taxes for 1887 647,439 20 
 
 Total $2,974,116 28 
 
 Which does not include interest, penalties, or- costs. 
 
 Of the above total, $962,356 10 is the sum remaining unpaid for taxes 
 for the years 1880 to 1884, inclusive, after acceptance of the compromise 
 money covering those taxes by Attorney-General Marshall. As to 
 whether this sum is beyond recovery by a reassessment is hereinbefore 
 fully discussed. If an Act is passed authorizing a final and legal settle- 
 ment the companies would probably pay 30 per cent of the above 
 amount, which would make in the aggregate 67 per cent of the whole 
 amount levied for those years. 
 
 The balance is $2,011,760 18, being face of total taxes for the years 
 1885, 1886, and 1887, no part of which has been paid. 
 
 II. 
 
 There are three feasible ways, in my judgment, in which to dispose 
 of these questions: 1. The Legislature can pass an Act authorizing the 
 Attorney-General to accept not less than a certain sum in satisfaction 
 of all claims the State may have for delinquent taxes. 2. The Legisla- 
 ture can pass an Act declaring the exact amount to be accepted in full 
 satisfaction for all back taxes. 3. By a reassessment bill providing for 
 the reassessment of railroads for the years of their default, 1880 to 1887, 
 inclusive. 
 
 In the event of the enactment of a reassessment statute, it should not 
 apply to those years solely, for such an Act would, in my opinion, be 
 unconstitutional, in view of the ruling laid down by the Supreme Court 
 in Bourn vs. Hart et al., 93 Cal. 321 ; and see, also, ex parte Westerfeld, 
 55 Cal. 550; Subdivisions 10 and 33 of Section 25, Article IV, State 
 Constitution. Such Act should be general in terms, applying to all 
 property that has escaped taxation by reason of the irregularities or 
 defects mentioned in the bill, since the adoption of the new Constitution, 
 and should apply to the future as well as the past. Provision ought 
 
26 
 
 also to be made whereby the companies would be credited with all sums 
 paid on account of such delinquent taxes, and a day should be fixed in 
 the bill on which such reassessment is to be made, and should provide 
 for the issuing and serving of due notice to persons and corporations to 
 be reassessed, and requiring from them a statement of property for the 
 years for which the reassessment is to be made, also fixing penalties 
 for failure to furnish such statements. In other words, a reassessment 
 bill should be as complete as to reassessments as the Political Code is 
 now in its provisions for assessing property. Such statute should be 
 made a part of said Code, in order that the law and all proceedings 
 thereunder should be liberally construed. If the reassessment law is in 
 the shape of a separate statute, it must be strictly construed; the rule 
 of liberal construction applies only to the Codes. It should provide 
 also for penalties, interest, and costs, without reference to any other 
 statute. That is to say, the Act should be complete in itself for the 
 carrying out of the objects intended; and it should be thereby enacted 
 that the judgment of any Court declaring an assessment invalid will 
 be sufficient jurisdictional ground for the reassessment. The bill also 
 should designate the Board or officer making the assessment. 
 
 Many serious questions may arise in regard to such reassessment; 
 among which I will specify: In making the reassessment, should the 
 rate of taxation be the same as fixed for the year in which such reas- 
 sessment is made, or should it be the rate for the respective years in 
 which the assessments have been held invalid? The latter rate would 
 yield a much larger sum than the former. Is there any mode, 
 through reassessment, whereby the people may recover from these 
 corporations the interest upon the taxes from the time they should 
 have been paid, if properly assessed originally, up to the time of pay- 
 ment? What notice should be given and what statements required? 
 Will a reassessment bill give to the people as much money as an Act 
 of the Legislature authorizing a settlement of these taxes? 
 
 As before stated, the railroad companies have offered to pay $1,207,- 
 056, being 60 per cent of the taxes of 1885, 1886, and 1887. 
 
 My opinion is that the taxes for 1887 can be collected in full, in 
 the actions before the Superior Court of San Francisco, Department 4, 
 wherein the trials of the suits to recover the same are in progress. 
 
 If the Legislature will authorize the receipt of the above or greater 
 sum in settlement, with 7 per cent interest from the day the taxes 
 became delinquent, the companies will doubtless accept the proposition. 
 Such a settlement could be effected within a short period, whereas if 
 reassessment is alone relied on there is no assurance that the compa- 
 nies will pay; they may continue the litigation for years, as they have 
 previously done, and the people be further balked and delayed in the 
 receipt of these State and county revenues justly collectible and unrea- 
 sonably in default. 
 
 In view of the fact that the State has already been defeated in all the 
 suits for the taxes of 1885 and 1886, excepting the San Pablo and Tulare 
 case in the United States Supreme Court, and the further fact that the 
 railroad companies have paid taxes in full since 1887, and that there is 
 now no doubt as to the validity of our Constitution concerning the tax- 
 ation of railroads operated in more than one county, and considering 
 that it is possible to end pending litigation in reference thereto, would 
 it not be better for the people at this time to obtain a reasonable settle- 
 
27 
 
 ment, thereby putting money into the State and county treasuries for 
 immediate public use, than to wait perhaps many months to effect any 
 result by moans of a reassessment of the roads and litigation there- 
 under? I think that the following is the best course to pursue in the 
 settlement of this vexatious question: 
 
 1. That a joint committee of Senate and Assembly be appointed, to 
 which committee all bills upon the subject should be referred. That 
 the committee examine the subject-matter involved, and report to both 
 houses the result of the committee's consideration, which should include 
 whether the State can obtain more of these delinquent tax moneys by 
 settlement than by reassessment. 
 
 _'. That two hills ought to be passed, one authorizing the Attorney- 
 ( General to accept not less than a certain sum, to be fixed by the Legis- 
 lature, for a release by the State of all claims for these taxes, and also 
 a perfect bill providing for a reassessment, so that in the event a settle- 
 ment is not obtainable a valid reassessment may be made. 
 
 From a perusal of the statements and tables appearing herein the 
 members of the Legislature should be enabled to determine whether or 
 not the companies have any moral or equitable grounds for objection to 
 the assessments made for the years 1885, 1886, and 1887. It must be 
 remembered, however, that the roads are of but little greater value now 
 than at the time the assessments were made, while other property in 
 the State has largely increased in value since 1887; it follows that 
 taxes on railroads are relatively less now than they were in those years. 
 Respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 WM. H. H. HART, 
 
 Attorney-General. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 STATEMENT No. 1. 
 
 Showing the Assessed Value of each railroad of the Central Pacific System, and the Tax Levied 
 for State purposes against each road, for the year 1880. 
 
 Names of Railroads. 
 
 Total Assessment. 
 
 Amount of Tax for 
 State Purposes. 
 
 California Pacific 
 
 $1,801,300 00 
 
 12,239,456 00 
 
 1,492,758 00 
 
 539,098 00 
 
 492,800 00 
 
 10,483,518 00 
 
 597,632 00 
 
 249,725 00 
 
 $11,528 32 
 78,332 52 
 9,553 65 
 3,450 23 
 3,153 92 
 67,094 52 
 3,824 84 
 1,598 24 
 
 Central Pacific . 
 
 Northern Railway 
 
 Sacramento and Placerville _ 
 
 San Pablo and Tulare 
 
 Southern Pacific 
 
 Stockton and Copperopolis _. 
 
 Vaca Valley and Clear Lake 
 
 
 Totals _ _ 
 
 $27,896,287 00 
 
 $178,536 24 
 
 
 STATEMENT No. 2. 
 
 Showing the Assessment of the Railroads under the Central Pacific System, for the year 
 1881, giving the Counties through which the Roads Run. 
 
 Value of Property 
 
 Delinquent for 
 
 Taxes. 
 
 Amount of 
 
 Delinquent Tax 
 
 for State Pur- 
 
 California Pacific _ 
 
 Napa, Sacramento, and Yolo: 
 Central Pacific 
 
 Alameda, Butte, Fresno, Merced, Nevada, Placer, Sac- 
 ramento, San Francisco, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, 
 Shasta, Sierra, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, 
 and Yuba. 
 
 Northern Railway _.. 
 
 Alameda, Colusa, Contra Costa, Solano, Tehama, and 
 Yolo. 
 
 San Pablo and Tulare 
 
 Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Joaquin. 
 
 Southern Pacific 
 
 Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Monterey, San Benito, San 
 Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo, 
 Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Tulare. 
 
 $1,856,250 00 
 15,055,500 00 
 
 1,543,050 00 
 
 552,000 00 
 11,739,915 00 
 
 $30,746,715 00 
 
 $12,158 44 
 98,613 53 
 
 10,106 98 
 
 3,615 60 
 76,896 44 
 
 $201,390 99 
 
 Note. Amount of delinquent tax for county purposes not obtainable. 
 
29 
 
 STATEMEN r Xo. 3. 
 
 Showing the Assessed Value of each BuOroad <>f the i Vntrnl Pacific System, and the Tax Levied 
 for State purposes against each road, for the year 188t. 
 
 Names of Railroads. 
 
 Total Assessment. 
 
 A mount of Tax for 
 State Purposes. 
 
 California Pacific 
 
 Central Pacific. 
 
 Northern Railway 
 
 Sacramento and Placeryillt 
 
 San Pablo and Tulare 
 
 BoQthern Pacific 
 
 Stockton :mi Copperopolia - 
 Vaca Valley and < Hear Lake 
 
 Totals. 
 
 8L48&600 00 
 
 13,010,520 00 
 
 l.l l.'i.ix 
 
 21)1,1 MS (mi 
 
 IfKl (NX) IK) 
 
 s. 221 1186 00 
 248L026 I 
 
 $25,219,483 00 
 
 18,716 B0 
 
 77,642 7<) 
 
 6,812 28 
 
 -'.711 80 
 
 49,027 74 
 
 23 10 86 
 
 1,471 67 
 
 $150808 08 
 
 Notk. -Amount of delinquent tax for county purposes not obtainable. 
 
30 
 
 i 
 
 o 
 
 1* 
 
 I s 
 
 JL fl a- 'd J, 
 
 o s $ S^^, 
 
 <w ^ 2 . 
 
 -m 3 O dan 
 
 
 ) CO CO "*" "# CO ' 
 
 o Ob ob ^-i c5 6o cq < 
 
 l-HTtH^^T^t^Tt<lO< 
 
 I^COCOi-i-^lOOiHOOCNiOiHCOCNCNl'^C} 
 ll il (N il iH CO il i I 
 
 Wl^Oi-i 
 
 CO CO t^VO 
 
 VOOCO^ 
 
 oo"co~of 
 
 o a 
 
 , < a 
 
 r ^ > no 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 1" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 of 
 
 
 
 
 ^ S C3 
 O 0>0 
 
 3> 
 
 8888 88888888888888 
 
 OOQO COC^lTfCOiOCOCOiOCNCOCMCOCXidS 
 
 OO^OO^ COOjO^rH O^iO^OC^CN CO^OO 
 
 co~ao~o~cp~ cp~^^oo"^~~io~o~o~^~^Ttrccroo* 
 
 lO rf< C5 Tt<CNi^eNI^HCX>iOCOCOr^05 
 
 CO CO^ Tf< CO 00 O C5 CO CM iH CO CM lO CO CN 
 
 r-i-tio 
 
 CM COt* 
 
 8888 
 
 (M CO CO 00 
 OS-* <M<M 
 S/s-OOCOtN 
 
 
 
 v 
 
 Is 
 
 5 
 
 51 
 
 8 
 
 -d a> 
 
 8 
 
 P 
 tats 
 
 "* S 
 
 2*S 
 
 81000 
 
 00 00 t^ OS 
 
 co c4 co co 
 
 COCNiH 
 
 o osd""' aj 
 ^ o2 
 
 SR as ^ a> 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 o >, 
 
 gj3 
 Oji. 
 
 9) 
 
 So 
 
 C3 PI 
 
 
 0.2.2 03 
 
 "S s 2 % 
 
 s 
 
 03 
 
 Mc3 
 
 g^P 
 &WW** 
 
 iliillllKilfifllli in 
 
 g a> 03 
 
 
 c 
 
 o3 O 
 
 O o 
 
 O0Q 
 
31 
 
 I 
 
 *Tf 
 
 388 
 
 m 
 
 
 i 8 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 : ! g 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 888 
 
 
 
 888888888888 
 
 if ? i ~i i - i- IS i i - K 9 
 
 eff 
 
 efef 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 a 
 
 ss 
 
 i = 5 
 
 
 e 
 
 O 3 
 
 a 2jgo 
 2 o E - 
 
 lUfs&lsg? 
 
 ^ M 
 
 M p d 
 
 CD 
 
 6CS 
 
 - 
 
 $-:::: = ::::;:= 
 
 - . -z - s - - - - 
 g -^ ? / 
 
 e _ js 
 
 go 
 
 V.r- 
 
32 
 
 V 
 
 
 J| 
 
 2ft5 
 
 
 
 e 
 
 S3 
 11 
 
 o 
 
 ft 
 
 s 
 
 5 ,3 * 
 
 5 s 
 
 ax"" 
 
 *'S> CQ 
 
 Oh a. ^ d 
 
 ^* _ = i 
 
 *=> bi? 
 
 
 n3 go^a 
 
 
 3 ej 0> * m 
 
 
 oS 
 
 ^ 2 X 
 
 53 '- U 
 >Ph O 
 
 72 
 
 a: r<2 
 
 t- K ^.^3 
 
 I*?** 
 
 ^OoPh 
 
 =s^B 
 
 rH O 
 
 .SO 
 
 S^o o3Q> 
 
 2 03 B,~02 
 
 o^0 
 
 03 .0 B 
 
 53 
 
 Oh*-S^ 
 
 as 
 
 "*<NOCN 
 
 mcoia co 
 
 H^OOClNOO^N^TfcoOOO'*' 
 
 HO(NOCDO00tJ(( 
 
 CO^NOOOOOOOOi 
 
 of oo" of lo'^afco" 
 
 i OS tJ< 00 lO lO ) 
 
 iN^ioOffii 
 
 ~<n~t-t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 iO~ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OO<M00 
 ^ CM COCO 
 t- 00 OS 
 
 ^OOaHOlOVOMNKSlON^t^i^OOCD 
 *0SC0C0iHr-^<NiOC000C0<MI^05CNO 
 
 CONHOiONNOOCOHHOOCDONMOS 
 
 ofao'o~co'Vraf'*~ ^jTi-Tio ofi-Toocfco'" 
 
 OOOCOOO 00 
 OS iH I -# 00 OS 
 <M<M COOCOO 
 
 
 
 ig i i 
 :3 : i 
 
 .00 i i 
 
 \*o i i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 N1OOHO00 
 
 ^MMO i <M lO 00 OS CD ^ CO -f < 
 
 OS lO "H" O iOtIN0<Ni. . 
 
 cn_ o,oo^ . o^i-^oo^os^io t^cq_i>^iq_(M^co P ' 
 
 oT io~co" ! oft^oTr-Tof oo"T-rTH"cxrc<r< 
 
 O VO OS i-l * r)i 
 t^ >o CO ^O CO IC 
 
 lOINlOOCDH 
 
 co^ofofTtTof 
 
 o ' i ' ' i co 
 
 00 I i ' ' i i ' i OS 
 
 * - ' ' i i i i i i i icO 
 
 oo" I !!!!!!;!!!!!!!! !o 
 
 o , , i I i i i i i , i i 
 
 OS OS' 
 
 oooO' 
 
 00 00' 
 
 WMOS'HNlO^IMOONMNCSNaiN 
 OSOOOOQCpoOfOOCDCOlOl^tMCMOiOCN 
 00 O CO O_os t-^OO CN <M _Tf^eO^O r-i_O^CO O 
 
 Oi~^"os"oo"oo"ofc/"co'"^io~^c v ft^co'~co"-iroo'' 
 
 05<NCOOiOHNiON(NT(<COaOlOOOO 
 Hb-OS^HCOIOHHCOCO OOCOlOTt<CO 
 C0"iH"c4"i-TrH"-^r-r CN r-T iH" 
 
 OM(N(NN 
 NOONOl 
 
 -* o r-osio 
 ~co~oo' ofr^i-T 
 
 OOOO KNOCDOiOOOOiOOOmWO^iO] 
 OOOO iiOOOt-NNOONiOOHCDOlOCOl 
 
 
 
 ; 03 03 C 
 .^ c3 O 
 
 M 
 
 r3 
 
 o 
 
 O c3 
 
 
 
 Bj 
 
 esIS 
 
 S r ^ o 
 
 03^ 
 
 c3 
 
 
 
 P! Pi C e3 
 
 5^iji1j^ 
 
 ^ 5^ (3, 
 
 
T S H 
 
 ri 
 
 
 b4 
 
 8 
 
 
 8|S|iS88iiei 
 
 5 
 
 
 r. c 2 
 
 SS8S8g8g5g 
 
 CO t^ lO QO CO CD QO H ^ rl 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 O 'CCt^CCi 
 -j< ,-h ift .^ -^c *} i 
 
 SgSS? 
 
 I 
 
 p 
 
 H 
 
 ~_ 
 
 3 S 
 
 -Si 
 d 
 
 cj 
 GO 
 
 
 
 *i 
 
 - 
 
 i? 3 o' 3 ^ 
 
 <- J. J. Jl CO 02 QQ CO H 
 
34 
 
 3 e 
 
 jo * 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 *> 
 
 - a 
 
 aSSs 
 
 O C oj a; 
 358 
 
 ^o 
 
 SP* 
 
 a ^ 
 
 *a 
 0|S 
 
 
 co CD 
 P. 
 
 ^5 
 
 ~oa 
 
 O s3~* fl 
 
 ^W-d a 
 ogS 
 
 a . 
 
 "I -! 00 
 
 a oo o3 fe 
 
 5 G 
 
 s 
 
 2* 
 
 =5 EH 
 
 Is 
 
 2^ 
 
 
 W so 
 
 a 
 2 
 
 2-a 
 
 (MOT CO 00 
 OT COlO 
 
 i^HNOSNWMCONcMlOl 
 
 OCONN 
 00 t lO CO 
 
 o 
 
 [SSSSSSSS o^^cno^cc 
 
 00 CDiO<Ml^t~ 
 
 HHNOCOCO 
 
 NNHWM 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 If 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 of 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8888 
 
 05 i-l iH 
 
 00 00lHr-l 
 
 00 00HH 
 
 oo"oo"i-Ti-T 
 
 01 iH\Q 
 
 88888888888888888 
 
 COCOOOOOOOJMHNWOO^iOCOiNIN 
 iooOi-i-*Tf<cor^r^i-it^ot>ioooocoaoia 
 
 ^o~co~^~oo~^r^^~oo~^~c^~co~]>^co~ofT}r^~ 
 
 ooioonooo^i MO r^coco^ia 
 
 ofi-rofr-Ti-TcoW t-t c<r i-r 
 
 888888 
 
 rco'ccToft^T-r 
 
 ir^CDCO COOJ 
 I01COOI01CO 
 
 8S88 
 
 NOCOOOlOOtOOOOlOMOTl'iON 
 i(5OON(NNOt)H>10MHCDO10CD00 
 eOOiHCoiiHOieOG6eoioioiiO 
 00 t(< CD CO CO t-I -# lO lO (MiHt^tHiH 
 
 lO I lO C5 lO 
 
 00 00 t- (35 CM t- 
 
 8 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 o3 03 e 
 
 * cS O 
 
 2; coco 
 
 Cg. 
 
 3 
 
 2 S =5 
 
 fe S ft Pn go go cq 
 
 9 
 
35 
 
 S 
 
 SO 
 
 >.- t - -. i / r H - C -r g 
 
 S 
 
 5 
 
 SS 
 
 VrKt 
 
 888888888888 
 
 CO t- kC 00 CO CO 00 H Tf f* 
 
 S 
 
 2g 
 
 CCNQOOOlONlOCDOOlOOO 
 
 ^Tr^eNCD^ooeo-icoi--i' 
 
 iH l ( NH 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 I 
 
 5c 
 
 1 
 
 o S o 
 
 5 o 
 
 <- i. i 
 
 : ! 7 
 
 u S 
 O OT3 
 
 * * * 
 
 '** cj.5 
 
 &? 
 
 *| 
 
 ^- 
 
 O.fi.2 
 
 ^8 
 
 S 
 
 CJ O 
 
 I 
 
 "5^2 
 
 <egS3 
 
 
 
 o (3 
 
 sis 
 
 fej 
 
 2*3 3 
 
 0,0 Ch 
 -^ 
 
 8| 
 oo 
 * 
 
 ~ /. 
 ~ I ~ 
 
 *isl 
 
 CD ^r 
 <u n 
 2J^hJ3 ^ 
 
 *** aj 
 
 Co~ * 
 r^ e m 
 
36 
 
 -S* 
 
 
 a 
 
 a* 
 
 e *. 
 e 
 
 si 
 
 
 Q 
 
 O 
 
 o a 5 as 
 
 .w o f-> 
 
 2388 
 
 CNCiCO^ 
 ^COt-CO 
 t~ 050 
 
 t-I ,H ,H iH iH CO CO tH 
 
 oooocorooa 
 
 CO OS '-' VO OS t- 
 
 oo~co~ofco~eNT 
 
 "S d*>2 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 lO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i ( 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 III 
 
 09 03 
 
 OH 
 
 2S09- 
 
 8888 
 
 00 00 i-l ' 
 00 00 i-l 
 
 88888888888888888 
 
 Q0000020500QCOlOCOOCOt^OOOiOi-l 
 
 coiocp^oc:oia}*0'**<io^co;ccocN'-H 
 
 eN^Oj^CO COOOi^iOCCiCi-lTt<i IIC05-"* 
 
 ~^^rjTc^afco%H~iri~ir}~^co~e>fio~co~io' 
 
 CD-* 00' 
 C<Tr-Ti 
 
 t^CNOO t-COW'*'* 
 
 888888 
 
 81 
 
 OfflOlON 
 
 ofc<roo"Tjrt-r 
 
 -*COOHN 
 i-t"tf CO CO CO 
 
 8 
 
 <!2 
 
 > 
 
 
 *CO 
 
 NQMl0iOiOOCD>0OOOlQ^00N 
 lOO-'NMNO'^NiOOO'HCOOiOlOOO 
 
 -M 1=1 
 
 S aj fc 0) 
 
 o >, 
 
 a.__3 
 
 tH O 
 
 OJ^ 
 
 SSJI-a 
 
 0.2.3 
 
 s<3 
 
 -ggggg-gg 
 
 e a 
 
 03 03 
 X X 
 
 cv5 
 go 
 
 ,8 W 
 1 Pr 
 
 III 
 
 71 
 
 o 
 
 03 o a , 
 
 r* 03 Jh ,_, 
 
 So o> o 
 OoQHl* 
 
37 
 
 
 85 
 
 8SlsS8SSSIl 
 
 3 
 
 :888 
 
 888888888888 
 
 8isa288f2gg 
 
 Sf 2~ ec 3T-H~cr irfecgQ'gf 
 co r- o oo eo cc oo h r}< *-i 
 
 I 
 
 S2S? 
 
 - i - : to" r^ io oi c^i <m" 
 
 HCffHtOO MO 09 
 
 2- cj 
 
 is 8 
 
 cj O ~ O 
 
 o 
 < - '^HH 
 
 * 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 P eJ - ~ - - - - - - - r. r. 
 _ X - '- v. 
 
 Ch^^ 
 
 s ;j 
 
 - v, / 
 
 ST3 
 
38 
 
 I 
 
 I* 
 
 if 
 
 'A 
 
 
 3 
 
 os3 
 
 
 t3 2 R 
 
 S 2 
 
 Sgas 
 
 ^ S3 S3 
 
 II 5 
 
 o 
 
 5 o 
 
 ,2 
 
 00 (h 
 
 QQ m 
 
 8 
 
 QQ 0) 
 
 S3 
 
 |2SS 
 
 
 S3 . 
 
 OS- 
 'S Jh 
 
 Sis 
 * 
 
 W O 
 
 
 jl 
 
 S3 
 
 aiH 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 
 03 
 
 55 
 
 
 9 
 
 CO^CO lO 
 
 of t^irf" 
 
 (NCOiOOlNCOOOCDCOONlOMOHOOr)< 
 ONeqiO^CONOOH(NXHW<J<NH 
 NHN0500-*I>MHN-HOM'<*'lOW 1 * 
 
 OCDCOlOOOO 
 
 oocqcoHoB 
 
 (N QO OS 00 Tt i-t 
 t CO Tf* CO CD iH 
 
 ozcocfcoco 
 
 888 
 
 HHCO 
 HHOO 
 C5 CO 
 
 
 
 ef 
 
 
 
 888888888888888888 :888888 
 
 IOCO 
 
 afio-* 
 
 OONO 
 OHO 
 
 C0t--t>-t^kOl>-CD^J<t^Tji 
 
 i t- tJI i-l lO CO lO 
 ' t- Tf< CM lO CN r 
 
 T*H t>- ,-1 CO lO T* 
 
 OiCOOiO lOiCNCOCOOiCOOTtiasi^ CO C5 O CO Ol C5 
 
 HiOC-lOJCOrHHOOOOCOOHCOO) CO CO CO 'tfl T* i~i 
 
 OJNOOO rj< tN lO CO lO N O CO CO i-l CO Tf< CO CO Tt< 
 
 <M T-t T-i 
 
 8 
 
 (NQCOlfllOlOQCOOOoOlO^COQTHOON 
 OO'HNINt'O^NiqoHlCCOOiOlOOO 
 
 eoooedocN^cNCDco'e4cNo<NOC>coo 
 
 CO tJ< CO CO CO t-i -^ lO CO lO CO i-l t^ T-t i-l 
 
 WHlQiOOSlO 
 COCOt^OJCNt- 
 
 oj e3 
 
 O cc S3 
 
 ;!^ico 
 
 IHH^ il 
 
 
 ^S S 3 
 
 s s 
 
 c^ 
 
 *3 2 C3 c^SiS^ 
 
 
 III 
 
 55 
 
 5 
 
 0) 
 
 o 
 
 S g : 
 
 +i 2 c3 O 
 
 4), 
 
89 
 
 N 
 
 Sii 
 
 i 
 
 
 88 
 EI 
 
 95 ?^ ^~ 
 
 5S5555 
 
 B 
 
 <N -tr & t- c3 6i 35 ^ ^ra> 
 
 <n<nW *f 
 
 888 
 
 B 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 88 
 
 8 
 
 328 
 
 H 1ft * O H 5 Ifl NW CD 
 
 
 B 
 
 8 
 
 odio 
 
 ef 
 
 e4 
 
 a 
 
 e3 
 
 0-5 
 
 3Q 
 
 5c 
 
 = - 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 X 
 
 o ; & 
 
 Lfeiiiiliii 
 
 ^- X X / 1 
 
 gq 
 
 2n 
 
 I i 
 X X 
 
40 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 <s> 
 
 
 
 25 
 
 
 838! 
 
 HCD"*COCOt^OOt>l 
 
 ^Tt^rtCt-raTo'co co~ 
 
 lO^cor^ascocNr^ 
 
 < 05 CO CD Ol O CO 00 
 
 5? cxTof cd\-Tco~ 
 
 Oi CM lO * CO L . 
 1CIONHOCO 
 
 COCfCNefCN* 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 <* 
 
 T-T 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2* 
 
 5* 
 
 8888 
 
 HH00CO 
 
 i-Ti-TcxTco" 
 
 HH00 00 
 C5 COCO 
 
 888888888888888888 
 
 T^lOCOCOCOCMCTiCOlOiH^lOOOCMCOTtfOlO 
 Oi-<*O^Hi !COCOCOT*<iOOOCDCpcOCOQ-*i I 
 
 i^Tt<c<iaococoHcococDcoi^cicot^aicDco 
 cxraf^^^co~co~aTarcr^co~af^~crf<>faf 
 
 NOOCOOCOIN^COt-TtlTjlCOlOOHNH 
 CD OS CN t- CD CN CO r-li-ICO CD -^ CN 00 CN CO 
 
 T-T 1-T Of T-T T-4 iH 
 
 888888 
 
 rt< Nocomo 
 
 OCN OiCOCOiH 
 NNOHCNH 
 
 e<ri-rco%jrof'-r 
 
 iH Ci CO CN CN CO 
 
 3? 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 
 tf 
 
 
 8888 
 
 r-i OH 
 ""# "* CO 
 
 CD* CN CO CD t^ O 
 CDCNi-HiHCN 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 o a>S3 
 S^ o 
 
 *^ i<3 . 
 
 S 4> c3 C8 6 g 
 
 gigolo 
 
 -r s ' ' O O o a> O 
 
41 
 
 i 
 
 g 
 
 S25 
 
 ^ 03 * C t* CO CO - C* t>- ffi CO 
 
 iiplilfetpl ' 
 
 S83 
 
 KS8 
 
 8888888888888 
 
 S I .- i - fe :: i - B i - * -r CO, 
 od"-jvh* *<%*"" lo" ""' CO Of OS"*" 
 
 fi-ft-T eoof 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 $25 
 
 gd K 
 
 2Ss222ja&jaS!22S1228 
 
 ^t^'''J'^ j cd , toooo^ , t-^oO'- - ^' 
 
 -t y-t iH CS i-H 
 
 s 
 
 1 
 
 - 
 s d 
 
 g 
 
 O 09 
 
 
 .5 ~ 
 
 03 *~ 
 
 ~aj o C o I c 5 5 .Si C p_ 
 
 *3 s iJl*JJJJJJ 
 
 CO CQ 
 
 H 
 
 II 
 
 /. - 
 
42 
 
 C 00 
 
 
 S\2 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 3& 
 
 
 CO 
 
 P.S0 
 g*S 
 
 ga 
 
 sis* 
 
 o oSd" -1 gj 
 viW 'S'dtf 
 
 w on e3 ^ 0) 
 
 a 
 
 OCDWNOSM'^NCOOOiNCDaiONOi 
 aTcO~00~CO'OilO~lO' CO^i-Ti-T i-TcnTi-h"^,-^ 
 
 C5 CO CO iO 00 tH 
 
 ur> co oi oo co -<tf t^ 
 
 IO t~- 00 <<*< CI IO 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 o 
 
 !> 
 
 io" 
 
 CN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8888 
 
 tH i-l 00 00 
 
 i-Ti-roo'oo" 
 
 HH0O0O 
 05 OOCD 
 
 888888888888888888 
 
 CO^ia-^aOCOOlOlOCOCOOOtNiOlOCNaO"* 
 Tj<OOt^CDO-HiOCMCOt^C7iC<}'*lOOO'*Ot^ 
 CO CO t- t- CO 00 t- 00 CI Oi 00 Tt< O OS O t^rr JM 
 
 r^co~co~afcc~ 
 -f oo ^ co or 
 
 TP !>CD0' 
 
 8888888 
 
 CO O CO 00 OS t- t~- 
 
 Oi CO CO iO CO * t-( 
 CO CO O <M t- iO rt< 
 
 in~cf of co~iTi^"co" 
 
 C75 t~- OO ON iH t IO 
 
 S3 
 
 8 
 
 oooo 
 
 IsSsS' 
 
 2 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 o3 c3 
 
 M 
 
 
 0) ' o 
 
 Cj-tf 0> 
 
 o 
 O 2.5 c3 
 
 a * 3Q 
 6.H O^ 
 
 j||Ss49lJiliili 
 
 , .5 
 
 e3 i ! i , 
 
 fH 'U O *- J _ ^ 
 
 " a)_i a) d d ^ 
 
 JlJJ!& 
 
 to 
 
43 
 
 8 
 B88838 
 
 E >; Bocdo 
 
 
 88888S 
 
 i o ro t- i - ge 
 r- ~ r- o ^h 
 
 c-j SB n h a 
 
 888888888888888888888 
 
 *3l83$i8s3eg-vi 
 
 8 
 
 ' sd B I ' ' 
 
 c-i 2" ' 25 H rj t^ irt >o io ec ro ci -h cc <m ic cs i^ 
 
 r-Ti-T i-T C-fi-T i-T 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 58J88!5Sg 
 
 i C'l i-H o vb o < 
 
44 
 
 "3 - 
 
 ^ OS 
 
 +i O 2 
 
 8*8 
 
 
 OMHOliOOOJOHl 
 OCOHCONOSHHNI 
 tN-^r^r^OOt^O^eNlOSTHOOCOOSOSi 
 
 os~co r^io"os~co~o~ vo~ id" co~of j 
 
 \-TcO~ 
 
 CO 00 i-l CN i-l CD < 
 NN95NOH! 
 Tfl t^ OS 00 CO CO - 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 1 
 
 iH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 "8 
 
 8 e 
 
 1-1 
 
 2o 
 
 n o.d 
 
 8888 
 
 i-i i-i os os 
 
 Hr-(0OOO 
 
 HHOOOO 
 
 i-T^-T cxToo" 
 
 i-l iH 00 00 
 
 OS ooco 
 
 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOQQOQ 
 
 oooooooooooooooooo 
 
 CDTt<i0^00C0O0l0C0C000(MiO0(M00T}4 
 ^OOI>COOHiONCON03(M-*iOWTl<ON 
 COCOt-t^CDOOt-OOOSOSQO^OOSOt^T^lM 
 I^CO~CO~OS~CO~C>fcO~CN~I^^OO~^Oo'"cO~Tf'iOCD~CD" 
 TfCOTrcOCNCCii-l-<t | OOTt<CN)CO-<* l OSI^OCOt^ 
 "^t^OCDiOOSt^ OSrtTfl ^< CO iH - CN Ol 
 
 COOSOSOOO 
 
 <> 
 
 
 *s5 
 
 *< p. 
 
 nw-o5 
 
 So go 
 
 OlOOO 
 
 i-5 'cii-i 
 
 ^ "Sh CO 
 
 -3 
 
 5 
 
 - * . 
 
 2o5S 
 
 S SR * 2 
 
 c 
 
 
 C3 
 
 o 
 
 o , . 
 
 o.2.a 03 
 
 
 .Ji ip|lllIf*|Mi|IJi 
 
 
 2 a a 
 
 o o 
 
 Oh 
 
45 
 
 C^Vhcn M 
 
 ggJS^2SggSSSS^255:S|g8SS 
 
 ioc^C>^OTCDi>--*oot-r^i^oOi-*tf5e 
 cTecTeo t-' d ! i ; 
 
 efc^'i-rc^Tf''eoc^'QO*ft 
 
 
 : 8 
 i * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 888888 
 
 |t 
 
 I a 3 i 
 
 8888888888888888888888 
 
 MCNlQb-OI^^OiCO'-tOSiOtNQStP'-'O-'t'OO?; 
 
 P 3S r 7 fc H 55mOC " H Z 51 o -r -2 - 
 
 55 oo o cn <njn -t *o,ft. io oo cn cn 35 cn 55 qio 
 i-Ti-T t-T tN"-T -T 
 
 g 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 55 oo io cn ec cn r* co to o 55 cn <n cn 55 o o 
 
 1 
 
 - 
 
 3-1 
 
 5| 
 
 SOS 
 
 = _- -- 
 
 00 00 00 
 
 - - - 
 
 p 0) eJO 
 
 'S 
 
 
 
 25 -2 
 5 
 
46 
 
 SSph 
 3 
 
 a 
 6d 
 
 "Is 
 
 3 
 
 e 
 
 s 
 
 6 
 
 IS 
 VI 
 
 8 
 
 ** O ^ 2? 
 
 2 * 3 cu 
 
 CO lO CO 00 
 
 NHlON 
 COCOCN^H 
 OS OCO 
 1> 00""^ 
 
 iaeC05HC0^HC0NNNNOC000>0< 
 
 lOHO lO CO tH t- CNJ CO 
 
 8 
 
 ' CO lOffi i 
 100 OS tO I 
 
 2 as.j a< 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 ^ o ~ o 
 
 t-ItHOSOS 
 -^^00 00 
 1-^1-^00^00^ 
 
 i-Ti-Too^oo" 
 
 rH i-l 00 00 
 
 os ooco 
 
 loiooqoo * 
 
 lO OO TjH T^ t 
 
 ^oo~of of co~of co^ofr^V^ao' t^oo"co*~T*rio~o co~ 
 
 ^OOCDCOC^Cp-H^OO-^OlCO-^OSt-OCNt^ 
 *NO>Cai> OSiHtK M< CO iH I- <N CN 
 
 CO t^rH CO lO 
 
 CO OS i-l CO "3* 
 MMCOOOi 
 i-TofcD^-r^T^ 
 
 coco*- coco 
 
 So 
 
 r-> a>. 2 
 
 S 
 
 a 
 
 a s s - o 
 
 CO 1C -H I 
 00tJ<COi 
 
 |jaj 
 
 
 Sg 
 
 -d* 
 
 o^o 
 43 o'-p 
 
 Qj4-I 0< 
 
 W Oft 
 M S be 
 
 <u 5 a 
 cs 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 -a S3 
 
 H 58 
 
 - O 2 f_ 
 
 SScIO 
 
 5^.3 
 
 3 
 
 ' a 
 
 ,a 
 
 ,3 a 3 g g gji.2. J a'S 3 3 
 
 * 
 
 2 S c3 
 
 c5 
 
 a> c3 c3 
 > 2i3 
 
 Is o o 
 
47 
 
 
 
 
 E 
 
 coco CMi-Tcfi-Tr-rco 
 
 3358S&$388338aS5!33s.88 
 -* ' i " ?j a r 5 5 r 5 s r ^i 5 * - v - 
 
 <NO"lO'lO''<fNHHNOO' of e>frH~cN%*re>f *'"' o 
 
 r-tH t-4 r-t CO H lH 
 
 8 
 
 - Kfc, ~ i ,- r H 
 
 >"0 -. "-. r . T *s 5 r " 
 
 BQcNCQlX 
 
 f ~.\ I 
 ed ad ad > l 
 
 H.obt>ieo! 
 
 K 
 
 Oi^H 6i5-^xiooo-ieOiOC'>iQcoQO 
 
 tHiHi-1 rH NH 
 
 S 
 
 S^S'SSSSSS 
 
 ;38ccSS8S$883282S&i2g 
 
 cocoa>ieoc$-icoio io co cn cn co <n co cue 
 
 i-H j-H i I iH CSH rH 
 
 Si 
 
 i P 
 
 Q c 
 _. ** 
 
 is 
 o o 
 
 - --. p 
 
 * c3 c3 O 
 
 Bfli 
 
 O oS o 
 
 if" 
 /. - 
 
 r-^ ^ _. ^ 
 
 .1 
 
 2o'o = : o 
 
 -"S SPS Sf.2-2 
 Ctj e5>.2gg 3 5 
 
 BOO, 
 
 1 = 5 
 /' /' /! 
 
 * 3 cv 
 
 /. : > 
 
48 
 
 SB 
 
 _ C 
 
 * 
 
 Or- 
 
 8COt*QO 
 T^OOO 
 
 rtTocT CNr-T 
 
 00)NN05-*-*HlOHMOONWOMN 
 HNNOOCOOMO'- l^asQOCO' ICOOil COCO 
 (NNNHOOMCO^NO^N^NN^lOOOO 
 
 t-OOi-HOOCOCOr-l 
 
 QOOJOr-ICOHt-iN 
 HiOlOOt^OJ 
 
 
 ,CQ 
 
 6-S 
 
 a 
 
 8CO^OOi OiOCOOOO^I--OCOO^t~eNCO< 
 
 coo cooo 
 
 O ffi N N 05 00 r)( (TO rj< 1 
 
 rH(Mt-0<NO^H050DMHOOCSNtC 
 
 oo"TtTco~Tjrc<rio'c<rco" oo" 
 
 t 00 y-i lO 05 CO CO i 
 
 o o * 
 
 COOOOOO i O <M CO 00 CN "<*< 00 CO Q 00 t* Tt< <M t}< <N t* O 00 
 
 OOOOOt-I 'l0NHM-*H^lMOOW00H(NC0Nm05 
 
 CMOO'-HCO i 00 lO t*< 00 CO 00 t~- 00 CO i-l <N CO CO t* lO O t- lO 
 
 OCOCMCM 'lO-ft-CO^-*OM(MOCOMa)t(Nt- 
 
 i-H COCO "* lO CO I- CO CO OO "* O 05 lO 00 Tt< lO 05 rH rH CO 
 
 co" ioco~ ! aoV^oo~ido % *~co~ co" jh" o"co" t^ofeo" 
 
 S- tHCN CN i-t 
 
 I CM i-l 00 CD t^- <M 
 
 OJ O CO N N (M * 
 COO OO "^< 00 CO 
 
 i-Tr-Tefi-Too'co" 
 
 o coH 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 00 
 00 
 
 lO 
 
 t^ 
 
 CO 
 
 co" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ri 5 
 3 o o 
 
 3*> 
 
 00 00 i-l tH 
 
 CD^iQ-* 
 rf 00 CO CO 
 
 cocoroi- 
 t-Tco"ofo 
 
 '00 cp CO _ . 
 
 coo 
 
 OOCOOlOiOCOCOOO<MlOvO<MOO^ 
 O iiOCMCOt^O(M-^lOaOTt<i-IJt^ 
 CD00N000505M^O05ON(N(N 
 
 _ MNt*NNOOT(<OOCO 
 
 ^cocpcoCNCprH^qo^cNco-^Oit^O! 
 
 OOO00 oo< 
 jOTfJNO.'^J 
 
 *~-^oo"i-ro''^i 
 
 00 CO!> JT^O rt< < 
 CN rH CN ( 
 
 SB 
 
 Is 
 
 "3 ?h 
 
 8 
 
 cr 
 p 
 | 
 
 OlOOO 
 
 8COlOlOlOOCOlftO)WOOMQ^>CN 
 ONWNO-*N100HHCDOttDX 
 
 S 00 ' 05 ^^- 
 
49 
 
 :&3SSSS 88S$;SSS88838E::S88$38SoS8 
 
 SSSSSSS 8aS3SS588SSS3SSS8SS8SgS 
 
 0Q (M ** C^ t- ^ c^I C^ ' 
 
 _ C* 0> 05 ' 
 
 z 
 
 3B8858I 
 
 **3S85883SS8S53885$!S 
 
 of it" eCe*VJ ci i< -m -* ^ e 
 
 -r ^ ic * Oi 
 
 i 
 
 
 ^^hv 
 
 i~ -* c ao * 51 C-l -h * *? * O* 51 CC <N O (M X go 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 II 
 
 C3^ C 
 
 / / / / 
 
 
 = = 
 
 D J 
 
 f = 
 
 O i 
 
 - 
 1 ' 
 
 > 
 
 si 
 
 L 
 
 e8 O 
 
 2 -- 
 
 E Sicn 
 
 I" 
 
 cESP5 2 , .2^^ 
 
 " 3 M 
 
 SCO 
 
 > .s 2 *3." - - 
 
 
i