Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1857-06-24

Fletcher vs.. Peck, 9th Cranch, 129-131, and
was recognized and acted on by our Supreme
Court, in Jones VS.. Jones, I'd Jones, $50.
See also on this point, the remarks of Black,
Ch. j.. in Sharpless VS.. Mayor of Philadel-
| phia. 9th Har, 1912.
| Whether, therefore. the Pennsylvania Rail-
road Company, or their agents. promoted the
passage Of the said act of Assembly. with
the view and intent of becoming the pur-
chasers, and whether alledged in the said BILL
| the said public works have been a source of
revenue and profit to the State Treasury for
I've years last past, or whether on the other
hand. as is with glaripg and gross inconsis-
tency alleged by Henry S. Mott, one of these
complainants, in his bill simultaneously filed,
| they have not for many years yealded income
snfhcient to pay the cost of keeping them in
naviga6le order, ARE questions upon the con-
sideration of which this carnot enter, and
which cannot in any degsec affect the deter
mination of the case.
The naked question, therefore results
whether the tender to the Pennsylvania Rail
road Company of exemption from the tonnage
tax and from other State taxes upon their
bonds and property, upon their becoming the
purchaser of the Main Line, and paying "a
million and half of dollars in addition to their
bid, is an unconstitutional assumption of
| power UY Tue 1LeSiSiatuTe, WHICH rcQu6rS TIE
| act wholly invalid, null and void.
There is nothing in the Constitution of Penn
| sylvana which expressly. or by necessary
inference, limits the Legislature in its admit
! ted power of regulating taxation and in the
| absence of such provision, the competency of
the Legislature to part with the taxing power
| in reference to specified property has been
| frequently recognized, and cannot at this day
be regarded as an open question. In the
State of New Jersey VS.. Wilson, Tth Cranch
| 164, it was decided that Legislative act de-
claring that certain lands which should be
purchased from the Indians should not be
thereafter subject to any tax, constituted a
! contract, which could not be rescinded by
| subsequent legislative act: such repeating
act being void under that clause of the Con
stitutioa of the United States, which prohibits
State from passing any law imparing the
obligation of contracts. But if the position
assumed by these complainants were correct.
| that the right TO tax is inalienable, and that
| the Legislature cannot bind the government
against its future exercise, the first mentioned
act in that case would have been wholly inop-
erative and void, and there would have been
no valid contract to be impaired or violated.
The same question arose in Gordon VS.. Ab-
peal Tax Court, Sd Howard 133 The Leg
islature of Maryland in 1921, continued the
charter of several banks to 1915, upon con-
dition that they would make road and pay
| school tax. A clause in the law provided
! that upon any of the said banks accepting of
! ard complying with the terms and conditions
| of the act, the faith of the State was pledged
not to impose any further tax or burden
upon them during the continuance of their
charters under the act. Held, that this was a
| contract exempting the stockholders from
tax which the Legislature. in 1871, attempted
to levy on them as individuals, according to
! the amount of their stock.
In State Bank of Ohio VS.. Knoop, 10th
Howard 369, the same position was insisted
on which is now pressed on us that the relin-
| quishment of the taxing power cannot be
made the subject of binding contract be-
! tween the Legislature and individuals or cor
poratons. Judge Mclean, ins delivering
the..opinion of the Court. completely overthrows
this position, and demonstrates the right of
the Legislature to exempt specified property
! from taxation, REIMBURSEMENT, Communication
| or Limitation. See p. 383 to 39l.
| This case was reviewed and affirmed in
Dodge vs. Woolsey, 18th How, 331.
| The principal is also contained in many
| other cases.
| See Hardy VS.. Waltham, 9Th Pick 1l0.
Atwater VS.. Woodbridge. 9th Conn, 323.
Seymour VS.. Hartford, 21st Conn 4S1.
Our Legislature have frequently passed
laws exempting property from taxation. See
7th section, Act 1st March, 1880, lst Smiths
Laws, 4S9. ezempting lands granted to sol
diers, &C., during their lives, and act OF 10th
of March, 1TS5, section 33, ID Smith, 2S7.
to same effect, and those acts aeccognized IN
Finnev vs. Commissioners of Mercer county,
lists. &R., 62
Coney VS.. Ovens. 9th Watts, 435, see per
Kennedy, Just p. 43S
Act Of 10th April, 1888, pamp. p. 514,
exempts churches, colleges, &c.
And the numerous acts exempt particular
properties from taxation.
Act of the 9th April. 1S49. pamp. p. 500
exempts certain certificates of loan of certain
municipal corporations from taxation, except
for State purposes.
Act 4th May. 1852, authorizes the Gov
ernor and Safe Treasurer to borrow five mil
lions, and issue bonds which shall not be sub
ject to taxation for any purpose whatever
Act 10th of April. 1858, sect 81, pamp,
p. GOA, authorizes Governor and State Treas
urcr to issue bonds of Commonwealth for
money borrowed. not subject to taxation for
any purposes whatever.
Act of 18th May, 1857. sect. 20, extends
this provisions for two years.
Act of 1st of May, 1854, pamp. p. 535.
cxempts certain loans of city of Philadelphia;
&c from taxation, except for State purposes.
THos E. franklin, Attorney General.
THURSDAY, JUNE 1S.
4 At the opening of the Court yesterday, Mr.
Hirst presented the following petition -
The petition of Samuel b. Cooper, Jacob
md