Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1872-03-22
The Railroad Decision I'm the United
zs states Supreme Court.
SUPREME Court OF TIE L NITYD STATES.
Dece; 3i'e7 Term 1871 -s....

~CPhhHE Cot' RT OF TIE NITED STA les.
Dcce; 7''e7 Term, 1871. ..'
The TTtimtngto1, end Weldon R0il,oad
Co., Plaintiff ia Error, u. .71o. Il.
Reid, Sheriff. III cl-y0,'to the Supreme
Court of the State Of North Carolina
Mr.. Justice Davis. delivered tie opinion
of the Court.
This is awrit Of error 10 the Supreme
Court Of tie State of Moth Caroliua, and
brings up the question whether the recent
legislation Of the State concerning the col
lection of taxes is, as it affects the plaintiff
in error, in violation of that provision Of
the constitution OF the United States, which
declares that no State shall pass any law
impairing the obligation of contracts. AS
early as 1883, the General Assembly of
North Carolina incorporated the Whining
ton and Weldon Railroad Company, for
the purpose OF constructing 4 railroad in
the State, and inserted q provision in the
charter that the property of said company,
and the shares therein, shall he exempted
from any public charge or tax Whatsoever
It Ids been SO often decided by this court
that a charter ofiHcorporation granted by a
State creates a contract between the State
and the corporators, which the State CAN
not violate, that it would be a work of su-
pererogation to repeat the reasons on
which the argument is founded. 1t is true
that when corporation claims an exemp-
ton from taxation, it must show that the
power to tax las been clearly relinquisbcd
by the State, and if there be reasonable
doubt about this having been done. that
doubt must be solved in favor of the State
(The Binghamton Bridge case, Sd Wallace.)
Ii, however, the contract is plain aud un-
ambiguous, and the meaning of the parties
to it can be clearly ascertained it is the
AIIfH 4 = fI,a "a, Al.
same as if it were contract between pri-
vate persons, without regard to its supposed
injurious effects upon the public interests.
1t may be conceded that it were better
for the interest Of the State, that the tax
ing power, which is one Of the highest and
most important attributes Of sovereignty,
should on no occasion be surrendered. In
the nature Of things the necessities of the
government cannot always be forseen, and
in the changes of time the ability to raise
revenue from every species Of property may
be of vital Importance to the State, but the
Courts of the CeIntYy aIe not the proper
tribunals TO apply the corrective 10 iinprov-
ident legislation Of this character. If there
be no constitutional rrstsaint on the action
OF the Legislature on this subject, there is
nOremedy, except through the influence Of
wise public sentiment, reaching and con-
trolling tho conduct OF the law-making
power.
There is 10 difficulty whatever in this
case. The General Assembly Of North
Carolina told the Wilmington and Weldon
railroad company, i'll language which 40
one can misunderstood. that if they would
complete the work Of internal improve
ment for which they were incorpoI ated
their property and the shares Of their stock
holders should be forever exempt from
taxation This is not denied, but it is con
tended that the subsequent legislation docs
not impair the obligation of the contract,
and this presents the only question in the
case. The taxes imposed are upon the
franchise and rolling stock of the company,
aud upon lots Of land appurtenant to and
forming part Of the property Of the coNu-
pany, and necessary to be used i'll the sue
cessfUl operation of It's business. IT GER
tainly requires 10 argument to show that
a railroad corporation cannot perform The
functions for which it was created with
ted quantity of real estate. and that
these are embraced in the gen.
sral term property. Property is n
word OF large import, and in its
application 10 this company included all the
real and personal estate required by it, for
the successful prosecution Of its business.
II it had appeared that the company had
acquired, either real or personal estate, be-
yOnd its legitimate wants. it is very clear
that such acquisitions would not be within
the protection of the contract. But no such
case has arisen, and Te are only called up
on to decide upon the case made by the re-
cord, which shows plainly enough that the
company has not undertaken II abuse the
favor of the Legislature.
Ii is insisted, however, that The tax Oh
the franchise is something entirely distinct
from the property of the corporation and
that the Legislature, therefore, was not in
hibited from taxing il. This position is
equally unsOund with tie others taken i'll
this case. Nothing is better settled than
that the franchise of private corporation
which in its application to a railroad is
Il privilege OF running it and taking fare
and freight-is property, and of the most
valuable kind, as it cannot be taken for
pubic use even with out compensation
(Redtield on Railways, p. 1Z9, sec. T0.) 1t
is true'it is not the same sort ofpr operty as
the rolling stock, road bed, and depot
grounds, but it is equally with them cover
ed by the general term 8 the property Cf
the company and, therefore, equally with
in the protection of the charter.
1t is needless to argue the point further.
1t is clear that the legislation in COntrover-
sy did impair the obligation OF the contract,
which the General Assembly OF North Car
olina made with the plaintiff in error, and
it follows that the judgment Of the Supreme
Court must be reversed. It is so ordered,
AMI the cause is rem anded for further pro-
ceedings III conformity with this opinion.