The true Democrat., 1855-02-21
;; and so as to be equal and uniform throughout

and so as to be equal and uniform throughout the State.'
 The constitution seems to require only that the value of taxable property shall be ascer- tained with uniformity throughout the State by law, and that no kind of taxable property shall be taxed higher than another kind of property of the same value.
 It is left to the law to declare what property shall be subject to taxation It may exempt particular kinds of property from taxation by emitting to include them in the assessment lists. as slaves, horses and cattle of certain apes. or by express enactment, that certain other kinds of property as mountain lands or swamp lands shall not be taxed.
 These exemptions may be wise or unwise may operate unequally in this, that swamp lands, although exempt from taxation, may be valuable, and source of abundant revenue if taxed, can better endure taxation than other lands, and they may be confined to particular sections of the State, so as to produce striking pract1cai inequality in bearing the burdens of etate government, but so long as swamp lands throughout the State are alike exempt or alike taxed, there is no such theoretical equality as to conflict with the constitution.
 | 1t is true that when language IS claimed to express either temporary or permanent yield ing up of so essential d part of sovereignty as the exercise of the taxing power, and especially of that upon lands, which in every civilized country afford natural fund for taxation. and are the only unfailing sources of revenue. it should be severely scrutinized before such shall be declared to be its meaning; still that IS mat ter of signitication, not of constitutionaEity.
 Hence 1 take the 14th section of the act of the 9th Jan, 1851, not to be violation of the constitution of this State.
 The principle of construction just mentioned IS to be borne ln mind in forming an opinion upon the question whether the act of 1 Ith Jan.. 1853, must fall, for its incompatability to stand With the constitution of the United States
 stlll have more difficulty in forming an opmlon upon the validity of this statute than upon the one just considered
 l should hesitate to pronounce the fifth sec ton of the act of 9th Jan., l951 a contract. for It's defect of expression to constitute an engage mehts Tor the want of parties, want of fNutuali- ! ty, and want of consideration, all necessary to convert proposition into grant. I incline to call 1t ln the language of the section an induce ment7 or gratuity, boon, which the State saw proper to offer, but which she has the same right to recall. While the inducement was held ont, so long the taker of lands is entitled to have, and has its benefits; but he has no legal right to hold the State to the ruinous fulfillmen; of even promise if it be so called, made irnpro- vidently, indefinitely, and without ca,nsidera- tion
 Should the State declare through her Lexis ature that, for a series of years she would not tax any property more than one-twentieth of one per cent, and thus induce settlers within her boundaries, would not the very next Legis- lature have the power and legal right to raise. the tax to any rate that might be required to procure sufficient fund for the necessary ex- penses of government?
 The tariff compromise act of Congress- enact ed that till such prospective date. no higher or fewer duties should be collected on specific lmportatlons, than particular sums named; but what statesman was ever bold enough to attach more legal validity to that act than any other law? At each alteration of the rate of customs. importing merchants manufacturers, and deal CTS are deeply affected, but who ever heard of any claim on government for indemnity for losses thus incurred?
 It seems to me- that the right of rvpealing a law IS not affected by the law being of indef- nlte duration, or limited to certain number of years.
 If said section be contract of the State not to tax the several lands, when Is i. to end? The bill says on the 9th Jan., 1861, if the lands are then reclaimed; if not then re- calmed, when the lands are reclaimed. But if the lands be reclaimed now, or shall be before the expiration of ten years, may they be taxed? The act approved 18th January, 1853, in it's 33d and 34th sections plainly answers in the af- firnative; this the bill denies and supports the denial by the usual charge of unconstisutonal- ty against these sections
 This shows the ambiguity of the 14th section ot the act of 9th Jan. 1851; so without saving that the act of 11th Jan, 1855, is cons stutional feel fully authorized to say that I consider the case made in the bill too uncertain to jus- tify the relief prayed in the bill
 My remarks upon this subject so far, are to be taken as suggestions only, that have been presented to my mind upon such casual rehec- tlon as has been given to the subject, after a l conclusion that the whole matter need not be thoroughly investigated to decide this applica- ton. l take 1t to be proper for me to express my opinions, guarding well the extent of the expression, when the application to be granted, must be sustained by arguments and authorities that free the question from doubt.
 If l should ever be called upon to decide so- lemny the naked question of the validity of this law, l hope to be able to do so without be- ing too much biased by the foregoing sugges- tions or by the strong dsapprobation of the policy of the exemption from taxation given in l4th section of act of 9th Jan., 1851, which as a citizen of the State, entertain
 Although l confess to strong inclination to believe the law constitutional, 1 feel the weight Of the case of the State of CIV Jersey vs. Wilson, and of that numerous class of cases, of which Dartmouth College vs. Woodward may be taken as representative case. The doctrine of those cases will not of course, be impeached here, but 1t has been very freely applied, has been ex- tended far enough, and if called upon to carry 1t out, should much prefer to be within than without the lines of such cases, and to make the application ;n final decree, with opportu- nity for complete settlement of all subssting equities rather than at the threshold of con test like this and ill nasty choice between va rious admitted remedies.
 This application is resisted because this court has no right to entertain this suit for any cause, on account of an act entitled "an act to protect the interests of this State," approved 18th Jan- bo of iob de