The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1873-03-25

Che legislative intent, that such property was to
be holden 10 The same manner and snhlect 10 tle
same righta as before The owners or the proper
ty were to lose no rights by this transfer nor was
the public to lose any rights thereby. Or course,
these REMARKS do not apply to tEose corporae g
rights and franc hlses OF the old company, which
appertaln to ts existence and functions as cor.
poration. These became merg.d and extinct.
But all Its rights and duties, Its privileges and
obligations as related to the public, or TO
third persons, remain, and devolve upon the
new company. This seems to us the most OBJ
vious and natural construction OF The act, snd
leads to the conclusion that, as 10 the road,
property, and works apnertaining TO the main
line flom Charleston to Hamburg, The South Car.
olna Railroad Company has no claim to e4emp-
tIOn from taxation.
This view Of the subject is corroborated by the
decision Of this court In the case OF Tne Pnlla.
delphla, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Com
psny, vs. Maryland, 10 Howard. 376. II tn re ap.
peared that the railroad line between Baltimore
and Philadelphia had orgiuslly belonged to sew.
era distinct organizations chartered by the Stal ea
OF Maryland, Delaware and Pennsylvania. One
OF thesa companies was exempt from CERTAIN !,
company taat thus exemption was transferred TO
It and affected sll part, OF the line. The act
authorizing the union Of the several companies
provided that the "satd body corporate 80 lOrm
should be entitled 10 all the powers and
privileges and advantages then belonging to the
former corporations" And The new company
claimed the exemption from taxes SO one OF the
DTlVlleQ6H AuQ 6AempbiOub dNqullSo' ouo shS
court held that the exemption did not extend to
8 portion OF the line to which 1t had not EXTENDED
before the union. IL considered the evident
meaning OF the'law TO be. that whatever PRIV
leges and advantages either OF the former comPs,
nies possessed should In like manner be held and
possessed by the new company, to the exlent OF
the road which the said former companies had
respectively occupied before the union; tnat u
should stanl In their place, and possens the
power, rights. and privileges they had severaliy
enioved IN the Ortions Uf the road which had
previously belonged to them.
1t seems to us that this decision is directly In
point, and governs that branch OF the case now
under consideration.
Reference is made, however, to certain de.
csions OF the courts Of South Carolina, which.
II 10 contended, Settle the question Lhe otner way
The first case referred 10 Ii South Carolina Rail
road Company va. Blake, Rich, 2a3, which
arose out Of an attempt OF the south Carolina
Railroad COMPANY to condemn certain lands 1or
It's purposes In Charleston. The owner dlspu ea
the right OF condemnation on the grouna inat
the road and works had long before been located,
and that therefore, the power was gone. But
the court held that the power existed under both
charters, and might be eXs rcsed under either
first, showing by AFFIDAVIT the necessity OF tne
u!e. The ohse vaIlons on lhs subject OF iaxs'
tIon were obfter dtctaj but, as far as the tudg.
men goes. it does not seem to US TO mlllta'e
against the views we have taken but rather 70
confirm them by recognlzuH Inc ntlaueo
Vitality Of The powers contained IN tue old cnar.
ceptng also lts duties and burdens.
Another case was that or tle State ex rel.
South Carolina Railroad Company VS.. HOOD,
State treasurer, Is Rich. IT. In which the co1n-
pany claimed exempt on from State income lux
imposed In 1857, undtr law passed the year
preceding. taxing the gross incomes OF an lai.
roads not exempt bv lGD. The court OF AppsS,s
held that the company WAS exempt Dy law, DOLL
under The thirty.six years exemption IN the OLD
charter, (which had MT then expred,) and nm.
der the exemption In the charter OF 1886; and
expressly waived the consideration OF tne enect
OF the act Of unto passed In l84s. THIS case,
therefore, furnishes no authority on the subject.
The remaining case ls that Of Ths Souta caro-; rs
lima Raj road Company vs. The Columbia and
Augusta Railroad Company, l3 Rich. Equity, S3s,
decided In 1857. The defendant company, IN that
case, was chartered tu 1858. with autnorlty 70
construct railrla from Columbia TO Augusta;
The South Carolina Railroad Company Claimed
that this would be an invasion Of its exclusive
priyilrges, as guaranteed in the charter OF the
suulh Carolina Uanal and Railroad Company ano
in that OF the Cincinnati and Charlesten Ealroad
Comuapy. The learned chancellor, by whom the
case was decided, assumed that the SCUM Oaro-
lima Railroad Company was entitled TO oolh guar
antees; but he held that The projected road would
not be an infringement Of either. The guaranty
alyeu to the old con pany was that OF an exclu-
slye right (lor thirty six years from the compile
tlon OF it, road) OF having railroad between
Charleston as one terminus, and tile towns OF
Columbia, Camden and Hamburg, respectively; !;
and the guaranty given TO the Cincinnati and
Charleston railroad Company was. thai for thlr.
~ six years from January crst 1885, the STATE
shou d not authorize any other road within twcn'
ty miles OF its road, which should con.
meet any points thereon, or should RON
In tho general direction thereof; which ex.
elusive privilege was not to be ex ended 10
brI nches, but ouly TO the man road. The chan
cellcr held that the nrst guaranty secured the
CT mpany only against other roads leading to
Charleston, which The projected road did not do;
and that the second guaranty secured tne COM
pauy only against roads interfering with the
main liae Of the CINCINNATI and CnaIleston oom-
papy, which The projected road cid not do, be-
cause this main line, as originally contemplate,
was to extend from Charleston Via Brancnvllle
and Columbia to Cincinnati; and tie only part OF
it ever constructed was the ROAD from Charleston
via BranchvIlle o Columbia. with which the Pro
jected road did not interfere. This was all that
the chancellor decided. II Is true that. IN the
course OF his opinion, he does say tnat alter lhe
acquisition Of the old road, extending from
Charleston to Hamburg, the charter OF the So1tn
Carolina Railroad Company extended over it the
same as II that company had built 1t. But That
proposition was not material to the CONCLUSION TO
which ne came. Aud when he assumed tnat tne
guarantee OF The old charter still suoslsted Win
regarti to the old road, and based hil Judgment
upon that assumption as one OF Its gr0Gnds, MS
oplpIon is virtually an authority ior tne otnet
proposition, that the company muss pe legs!oeu
as holding the old road, so lar as tne rlgnS o OF
tious and limitations or that charter, as Weu as
with its privileges and immunltles.
be thIs however, as It may. we tnd notnlng IN
thlg case or the other cases referred TO- which, In
our view Affects the authority OF the case OF the
Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad
Company vs.. Maryland, or the sounoness Oh lne
conclusion to which we have come, as oefore ex-
pressed.
constructed BY the South Carolina Railfoad CON.
pany, under It's own charter; being that por,loa
between BranchYe and Columbia and Camden:
We hays seen that the company, by its original
charter granted In 1885, had The 81 ant OF perpeL
nal exemp ption from taxation We nave areaoy
decided that 1t is competent for the legislative
mower 10 grant such an exemption. But IL is con-
tended on the part o. the state, that this e6emp
,ion. and all other chartered privileges OF the
COMPANY, are subject TO alteration and repeal py
v,rfIe of the 4lst section OF an act, passed ID De.
cemoer, ls4l, by which L. Is declared that IL snail
become part OF the charter Of every cofporatlon,
which shall, at the present, or any succeeding
session Of the General Assembly, receive grant
OF a charter or any renewal amendment, or moo.
iGcation thereof, unless the act granting sucn
charter renewal, amendment or modincauon
ANAL In express terms except lt,) tnat every cusf
ter or incorporation granted, renewed, OF m0ai.
nrd A. aforesaid shall at all tines remain suo)ect
10 amendment. alteration, or repeal oy Inc leSls
tive authority.n ., ., =,
Now. there can be no doubt but that tne act OF
Isia anthOrlzlng the consolidation OF tne Two
compauies, Cr the merger Of the one INTO the
other. was an act modifying the Charter OF the
South Carolina Railroad Company; but the third