Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 10.pdf/260

 John Potter Stockton. an act of the legislature that in the last century exempted from taxation a large tract of land belonging to a small tribe of Indians was a covenant running with the land when it was sold to third parties. At torney General Stockton maintained that by the transfer the land became taxable; and by also showing the fact that the first grantees had paid taxes he raised the point of estop pel to subsequent grantees. He succeeded in his contention, and put into the State treasury a large sum obtained by assess ments levied at times when the original wild lands had become valuable by progressive improvements. In the argument Attorney General Stockton had the apparent temerity to attack a decision of Chief Justice Marshall cited by his adversaries and seemingly deci sive. With great research he adduced doc uments and circumstances showing that Marshall's views hinged on erroneous and misconceived facts. Another cause cclibre that he also suc cessfully conducted for his State, was its suit against the Morris & Essex Railroad tried before referees ex-Judge John F. Dillon and Frederick W. Stevens, and brought to recover hundreds of thousands of dollars of arrears for taxes running through forty years and embracing the question how far com mutation of taxes in a charter diminished a right of subsequent taxation. Still another taxation cause cclibre argued by Attorney General Stockton, was that of State assessors claiming arrearages from the Singer Sewing Machine corporation which paying a license fee by virtue of one statute, resisted payment of property tax levied through another. The company contended that this tax was extinguished by the license taxation. Stockton argued from a brief filed at the March term, 1898, of the court of errors that the licensing for a State fee was not a property tax. Since his return to private practice Mr. Stockton has removed his main office to Jer sey City, the border line between his own

233

State and New York City, because while his son acts as attorney for their joint prac tice, the senior is employed largely as coun sel for New York offices concerned in New Jersey litigations, as well as by attorneys of his own State. His latest cause celibre is in the case of Charles Bott, vs., the New Jersey Secretary of State, over the question whether the pro posed constitutional amendment voted upon at the last election for closing race tracks and gambling at them was carried or lost. The contention moots the right of the judici ary to interfere when a legislature or leg islatively created body is charged with unconstitutional or illegal acts; and also whether, when a majority of the electors vot ing is necessary to a decision, that majority is calculated upon all ballots cast (whether defective or valid), or upon all the ballots declared counted. For, if the former, the amendment is lost; but if the latter, it has been carried, and the margin is less than five hundred votes. General Stockton's brief shows an exhaustive collation of all the cases in the different States which state the limitations as well as extent of judicial powers over public bodies in the matter of elections, and it is really a complete treatise on that subject. To instance the fecundity of General Stockton's legal mind and his tribute to his profession, it need only be added that not a volume of New Jersey reports can be found, issued during the last forty years, that does not contain one of his cases; and that thirty thick bound volumes of his printed briefs occupy his library shelves. But he has been notable at nisi prius as well as in banco. His persuasive powers have been often felt by jurors; and his analysis of the acts and motives of witnesses under cross-examina tion is remarkably incisive and keen. Dur ing his long attorney generalship he offici ated at assisting local prosecutors of criminal pleas in hundreds of felonies. He argues from the foundations of legal