The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1871-01-17
TUESDAY, JANUARY II, 1871.
The MarshalI County Ta1 Cases.

kft1lAtF tOuCnlng inc 1laEsnhl county
tax compromise, the main feature o.
which is an argument to show that the
United States Courts are not bound by
the construction put by Slate Courts upon
charters granted by the States which are
In the nature ola contract between the
State and the corporation chartered
Mr.. LAMB relies, in proof Of this position
upon the following quotation from de-
cIslou of the Supreme Courts
ut has been commended that the con-
struction given TO these acts Ofassembly
by the State Courts ought to be regarded
Us conclusive. 1t Is said that they are
laws OF the State, and that this Court al'
ways follows the construction given by
the State Courts to their own Constltu'
ton and laws .ol h'n NWl 1i
"liut this rule Of Interpretation Is con.
tined TO ordinary acts Of legislation, and
does not extend to the contracts Of the
State, although they should be made In
the form Of a law. For It would be i'm
possible for this court to exercise any ap-
pellate power In case Of this kind, unless
1t were at liberty TO interpret for itself the
instrument relied on as the contract be-
tween the parties. II must necessarily de.
eide whether the words used are words OF
contract, and what are their truo mean
Ing, before 1t can determine whether the
obligation tho instrument created has or
has not been impaired by the law COM
planned Of" &c. "If' N'N
This is all very clear; but Mr.. LAMB
has taken the trouble toprove what there
is no dispute about, while he leaves the
real point of controversy untouched. The
language Of the court here quoted shows
for itself that it was applied TO a. case
where subsequentlAww was alleged to be
in violation OF a previous charter con.
tract question TO be determined was
whether the contract had been thus VIC
lated, and to the determination OF this
question It was necessary for the court to
construe the charter or contract, 5r
But the Marshall county case is differ.
cnt. Thelaw under which 1t arose was
not in conflict with the Companys char
ter and it is not SO claimed. 1t expressly
provides that the property exempt from
taxation by the charter Of the Company
shall not be assessed or taxed, There was
therefore no violation Of contract, nor any
claim of any, which would require the dc.
cision Of the Supreme Court, us in the
case quoted by Mr.. LAND. Whether the
Company's property was exempt from
taxation by its charter was a question OF
fact, because 1t depended on whether tho
net revenues had exceeded six per cent,
This question of fact was examined by
tho State courts and their decision upon
It was that the revenues had exceeded six
per cent, and that tho property of the
Company was not exempt a1.'l 9at
1t being established thus that the Com.
pany was liable to taxation, beyond the
reach of legitimate appeal to the Supreme
Court of tho United States. there remain-
-. \. III! Z a, II.
gu sue ques'lon' WIN" a' Al,iu .n'y "ete 'i0
bic to-nhdt was meant by general" tax.
alton. The State Court held that this
meant just such taxation as other property
is subject to ut the hands Of the several
authorities, State, county and municipal,
invested with the taxing power. AS
there wa, no Issue involving the i'm.
n1,',.. =, ao,,.,ot :, caI,on,. .r0,
pairing VI CONTRAST ~ iO.'U"' essu
upon Mi. LAMBS own admission OIL the
rule, that the Supreme Court would have
followet, n. Mr.. STANTON claims, The rul.
~. - 'e..,aI oan., IL q. 'oors,r,o,;on
lng y tue oMtS cout1 ~ l'S of''14ueti0u
Of the work general" 10 show what
Mr.. LAMBS own views were on this ques.
linn naturalization hefore th;s cnmnromise
'.on ', tS.i'S'o.. 80 n, ~ "a
was i'taue, We quUse nun 'i0 . 'tie' S ana
argument Of himself and associate codn.
sel In the case. filed Tor TO be tiled) when
49,. o.,o ,,,a,, oa,,oa ~, Tho OH ;rs,
'no Va'0 'a' S'''iS. w 't'N ~
Inc only ground upon Whicn tnls court cL
can take jurisdiction q this cause Y, mat IA
the state lay imposing Is tafes upon % ne
properly Of me ePlalnuns, " IN ssonllct
with me charter OF Tue company ana there-
fore void, because IN violation o. mat pro,
vision Of ne CONSTITUTION Lot nc unlIed
States which prohipits any sate from
passing any law impairlng me ongGuon OF
contracts Inc law nader Whlch INC
taxes enjoined IN this case a were assessed n
waspassed December =, 1888 ana wilI ~ 20
found IN the Acts O. ina. yea, ?, 10
The 62d section OF that ACT which re-
quires Railroad companies 70 report their
property Tor taxaton, proyiues tnat, Inc
property exempt from taxation ny inc
charter o. any sach company, snaLl n9t oe
assessed" How TINS law can Do ned M