The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1867-03-30
THE COURTS.

and a Stats BY tie Making and Acceptance Of a
Grant Of Ldnds-Ihs Duty Of Ms Pa,tis, IN Re.
,so to a Edmund Niece Piainif IN Eror,
Is. M. r. p. Mafhia,, sherif, ae.-The facts in
this case are suiicisntiy stated in the opinion:
By the court (Mr Chief Justice Chase delivering
the opinion) In 1850 the United States granted,
BY act Of Congress- to the State Of Arkansas all the
| swamp and overlooked Government lands within It's
limits, on condition that the proceeds Of the lands
or the lands themselves should be applied, as far
as necessary in reclaiming them for cultivation by
means Of leyees and drains.
The State accepted the grant, and by an act Of
the Legislature In 1851 provided for the sale Of the
lands; for the issue Of transferable Scrip receiva
BILE for any lands not already taken up at the time
Of selection by tho holder for contracts for the
| making Of levees and drains and for tho payment
Of contractors In scrip or otherwise.
In the fourteenth section Of this act Il was pro.
vided that ITO encourage, by all Just means, the
progress and the completion Of the rsoaiming such
lands by Offering Inducements to purchasers and
contractors to take up said lands, all such swamp
and overlooked lands shall be exempt from taxation
for the term Of ten years. or until they shsl b re
| claimed.n
In 1855 this section was repealed, and provision
was made by law'for the taxation Of swamps and
oyeraowsd lands, sold or TO DO sold, precisely as
other lands
The plaintiffs In error, before this appeal, had
become the owner, BY transfer from contractors Of
large amount Of the scrip Issued under the act Of
1851, and with this scrip, after tho repeal took up
and paid for many sections and parts Of sections Of
the granted lands lying In Chicot county.
| In 1857 smother act Of the Legislature, local In
It's nature, provided for tho making Of leyees and
drains in Chicot county, and authorized q special
tax to meet the cost. This special tar was as.
sessed upon the unreclaimsd swamp lands Of tho
plaintiff In error as we'll as upon other lands, and
the defendant In error, under authority Of the act
proceeded to take the necessary measures for the
collection Of the tax.
The Constitution Of the United States ordains
| that " no State shall pass any law impairing the
| obligations Of contracts"
| The plantifin error hsd his bill In the proper
| State court, alleging that the acts Of 1855 and
State with the United States, expressed In the
grant by Congress In 1855, and Its aceeptance by
the State and also the contract between the State
and the levee contractors and other lawful holder.
Of swamp-land scrip, issued under the act Of 1851
that such scrip should be receivable for Indicated
swamp lands, and that such lands should not be
subject to taxation for ten years from tho time
when taken up or until reclaimed; and prayed an
injunction to restrain the defendant In error from
the collection Of the taxes authorised by those acts
In his answer to the bill the defendant stated
that the State and county taxes imposed on the
lands Of the complainant had been stricken out oil
the assessment by order Of the county court, and
justified his proceeding As sheriff to collect the
special leyee tax under the act Of 1857.
Tho cause was brought to hearing In tho Supreme
Court Of Arkansas BY whose decree the bill Of the
complainant was dismissed and II now comes be-
fore us upon writ Of error directed To the court.
The hrst question which requires consideration
Is, was tho levee tax imposed in violation Of any
contract between the State and the United States
It is not doubted that the grant by the United
States to the State upon conditions, and the &C
ceptance Of the grant by the State constituted q
contract. All the elements Of contract met 10 thu
ransaction-competent parties, proper subject
matter, sufficient consideration, and consent o
minds. This contract was binding upon the State
and could not DO violated by its legislation wthou
infringement Of the Constitution.
The contract required the State to appropriate,
the lands granted to the purpose Of retaining them
The lands themselves might DO conveyed to tn,
levee contractors for the work performed, or tb,
contractors might DO paid In money or In scrip
representing land. II the State, therefore, afte
acceptance Of the grant, and without applying thu
lands or their proceeds In money or scrip to th,
purpose Of reclamation, had sought by means o
and drains necessary to reclaim their land, II woult
certainly be difficult to say that the contract wa
not violated. But the case before US hardly come
within this description. The allegations and proof
do not show that tho State had not applied al
the lands granted and their proceeds to the maxim
of levees and drains before proceeding to impos
the special tax; and II this was DONE and the wor
Of reclamation remained still incomplete the impo
stion of such tax for the completion or preserva
tion Of the work cannot DO regarded as inconssten
State and the United States.
The next and only remaining question Is, Wa
the leyee tax In violation Of any contract between
the State and the complainant
1t seems quite clear that the net Of 1851, author
iEing the issue of transferable land scrip, and II
receipt from locators Of land In payment, and tn
provision in the l4th section Offering inducement
to purchasers and contractors by exempting froE
taxation, for ten years until reclaimed, all tn
{ swamp or overlooked lands constituted contrac
bat he EtaNa and hold ~ Nha Ia,I i
issued under the act.
When the scrip was issued to q contractor II rep
resented certain quantity Of land untaxable 70
} ten years, unless the land should be sooner mad
dt for cultivation. When transferred to anothe
person II represented to him like quantity Of lik
land. The contract Of the State was to convey th
land for the scrip and to refrain from taxation 70
the time specified Every piece Of scrip was q cor
tract between the State and the original holder an
his assigns. Now, what was the effect Of that cor
r tract when made? Did 1t not bind the State I
D receive the scrip in payment for swamp land. e,
empted for limited time from taxation? Th
scrip II not receivable for lands was worthless.
annul tho quality Of receivability was to annul th
contract. But the exemption Of the lands for whc
1t was receivable from taxation was principal 81,
ment in its value, and repeal Of the eIemptio
was the destruction of this element of value. Til
was clearly an impairment Of the contract. Th
State could no more change the terms Of the col
y tract by changing the stipulated character Of th
|
Il to liability to taxation than 1t could abrogate th
contract altogether by refusing to receive the scri
at all in payment for land.
n We are constrained to regard tho repeal Of th
exemption act, far 1t concerns lands paid fol
" either before after the repeal. by scrip issue
a and paid out before repeal, as impairng the col
tract Of the State with the holders Of the scrip.
!, 1t was streuuously urged for the defendant Thu
8 the exemption contemplated by the statute wi
}. exemption from general taxation, and not fro
10 special taxation for local improvements benehtn
the land, such as the making Of levees. and man
authorities wero cited In support Of this view Th
argument would have great force IL tho proyisio
4 for exemption had been contained in general ia
~ law, or in law in framing which the Legislator
might reasonably DO supposed to have in view gel
70 eral taxation only But the provision under col
y sideration is found in law providing for the col
struction Of leyees and draIns and devoting
IL that object funds supposed to DO more than I'D
quate, derived from the very lands exempted, az
y, the exemption is for ten years until reclaimed
- and is offered an inducement to take up Il
lands and thus furnish those funds. 1t Is imposs
bic to say that this exemption not from tax
tiOn for the purpose of making these leyees nj
drains, us we'll as from taxation in general.
Any other construction would ascribe to the Legi
v lature an intention to take the whole land for Il