The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-05-13

Of 1858 does impose tax lpou the railroad
and tts property, the question which he would
submit to the court was that there ia another
remedy besides the one sought In this oase, and
that is remedy Of law, which Is full, adequate
and complete.
Second. They would insist upon this proposition
that 1t has not become or Is not the absolutely
settled law OF the country, that Legislature can
tie up the hands OF subsequent Legislatures, 30
that they cannot tax property within the limits
of the State and tax all alike, equally and justly.
He then proceeded to chow what was the RENE
dy prescribed by law for parties who believe
themselves Illegally or enormously taxed, and
argued that under the law Of the recent Legisla.
ture the South Carolina Railroad would have to
pay the tax; that the paying OF q few hundred or
q few thousands OF dollars would not do irrepa-
rable injury to the corporation, as the bill as.
serted 1t would
Mr.. COrbin then argued that the State system
Of taxation was precisely similar to that Of the
United States Government, with this additional
advantage to the taxpayers OF the State, that the
State Auditor, when necessary, could convene
the State Board OF Equalization for the redress of
fed, he can go into the courts and have all wrongs
tested there. He would venture to assert that
there was no State in the Union where the rights
or the taxpayer had been more carefully guard
ed In the multiplicity Of appeals and opportani-
ties afforded him by the law for the redress OF all
illegal or erroneous assessments or taxation OF
property.
AS to whether the Legislature of 1873 could tie
up the hands Of all future Legislatures, he ad-
mitted that majority of the decisions OF the
Supreme Court OF the United States have been in
favor OF the authority Of the State to exercise
that power. The judges, however, have been
nearly equally divided. [IIere the sseaker cited
several cases in support OF his assertion.l he
stated that if the South Carolina Railroad Com
pany, which now owned one-tenth or one-twelfth
OF a the property in the city and was constantly
adding to it and paying no taxes, he would like to
know what would become OF the city debt. He
thought that II one Legislature was to be allowed
to tie the hands OF all subsequent ones, seed
would be planted in the government which would
destroy the government itself.
Attorney General Chamberlain followed In be-
half OF rhe State. His line OF argument was sim
liar to that OF his predecessor asserting that the
act OF no one Legislature could bind the subse-
quent ones, and that the claim OF the South Caro-.
lima Railroad Company that it had perpetual
exemption from taxation despite recent laws,
simply because previous Legislature had so de-
creed, was invalid.
General James Conner next addressed the
court, briefly stating the position Of the South
Carolina Railroad Company In this case In 1885
the Legislature OF the State gave in the charter of
the company perpetual exemption from taxa
tion 1t has renewed that exemption, and In
every act which 1t has passed ia relation to the
South Carolina Railroad Company has always
distinctly declared tina. the South Carolina Rail-
road Company 3 not amenable to alteration,
amendment or repeal Of It's charter by the Legis.
lature The provisions OF the act Of 1885, therefore,
remains as the law. For thlrty.lye years tine
State has adhered to and recognized the force Of
that charter amendment. 1t has never, during
that entire period, once attempted to levy tax,
and time has elapsed to have presumed grant,
even il one did not exist. Subsequent to the de.
clson of the Supreme Court of the State, in the
case OF the State vs. Hood, the act OF 1870 was
passed. But for the provision OF the act OF 1870,
the attempt levy taxupon the property OF the
South Carolina Railroad Company would have
been met either with writ OF Injunction In the
State Court or suggestion OF writ Of prohibition
upon the law side OF the court, which
would have stayed the hands Of the tax.
collectors until the right to tax had been adjudl-
Gated and judicially determined. But the COM
pany had not the power under the act OF 1870 to
avail themselves Of writ OF prohibition from
the State Courts, and the moment the tax collec-
tor put his hand upon the property OF the road
the tax must be paid. The company had no
remedy. The subject was very carefully consider
ed by the solicitors, and the conclusion reached
that tile company was powerless; that they
would have to pay the money. 1t was, there
fore, that corporatOrs, members OF another State,
seeking protection Of their rights, come Into this
court, asking this court to stay the hands Of par
ties until those rights have been ascertained and
determined.
Hon. A. G. Magrath followed, and said 1t SEEM
ed to be conceded by the counsel on the other
side that by the charter the company had, among
other OF It's valuable franchises, the exemption
from taxation. The arguments had this morning
taken narrow range, really consisting mainly ol
two points: first, that there was an adequate RENE
dy at law, and hence this court ought not to take
Jurisdiction; second, the great question whether
the legislative act Of 1895 tied up the hands OF all
future Legislatures as to taxation Of the property
of the South Carolina Railroad.
On the first point he endeav0red to show, 10y
citations from the statutes, that the remedy was
inadequate, incomplete and uncertain; but he
claimed whether that was so or not, the act o
1885, rs part OF the franchise secured perpet
ual exemption from the payment OF the tax, anG
that was what they were entitled to. Bus the
laws of the State having abolished the writ OF pro
hlbiton which had heretofore existed In matters
OF this kind to prevent illegal assessment AMI
taxation, afforded no protection to the road, and
this court was the only court i'll which this fran
chisc could now be protected.
Upen tile second ground, numerous authorities
and decisions OF the Supreme Court Of the United
States were cited to show: First, that the charter
OF private corporation was contract; second
as such 1t would be protected by the courts IN
der that provision OF the United States which
prohibits any State from passing any law in VIC
lation OF contracts. 1t was admitted by the
learned counsel that the courts had not been
unanimous upon this question, but the decisions
rendered by the majority Of the courts had al
been uniform since the great case OF the Dart
mouth College va. Woodward.
His Homer, Judge Bryan, delivered yerba
opinion. He decided that the Injunction asked
for was the apt remedy for the question brought