Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1873-04-10
Tho Railroad Tax.
'ur nished by our Law Reporter

Co., lying IN Cnls county, IOr county pun
poses, was fully argued before the Com
missioners, at their last meeting, by Dan
lei Clarke, Esq, for the Company, and v.
Brent, ESQ.,, for the Commissioners, and in
accordance with our promise of last week,
we present the following synopsis of their
respective arguments:
It was commended on the part of the Rail-
road Company that the capital stock there
of was by the Code made taxable, and that
to tax both stock and property would be
making the corporation pay a double tax.
Under the Act of 1864, Oh. 291 (Code Sup.
Art. 81, Sec 81 the presidents of banks
and other incorporated institutions are re-
quired to make return of their stockhold-
ers to the County Commissioners or Appeal
Tax Court for the purpose of taxing the
stock. And sec. "a, Code, Art. 81, pro-
vides that where any incorporated institu-
ton or company has no capital stock so-caH-
ed, the property and assets of the company
shall be assessed and the property and assets
are made subject to taxation.
Where the property of a corporation is
represented by shares of stock, it is the
stock in the hands of the shareholders upon
which the tax is imposed, and the proper
ty of the corporation real and personal
cannot also be taxed-Gordon's Ex's vs.
Mayor and City Councils Gill.
Tax cases, 10 Gill 6 Johns, 117-and
the same principle of the liability of stock
to taxation is recognised by the Court OF
Appeals. See 23d Md, 800; 30th Md,
1876. See also Act 1866, CHI. 1877, which
likewise contains provision for assessing
tax on stock of corporations.
On behalf of the Commissioners, it was
commended that all property must contrib
ute its portion of the burdens of taxation,
Bill of Rights, Art. Is. Code, Art. 81, sec.
142; Code, Sup, Art. 81, sec. 153, 161, 1876,
and 161 provides that all property shall
be assessed tohere permanently located.
The general rule, then is, that all pro-
perty must be taxed to support the bur-
dens of government, and taxed where per-
manently located.
But the Legislature, the taxing power,
has the right to exempt any property from
this rule, and has so created exemptions
by sec. and 8, Art. 81, Code, and sec. 1876,
Sup. This property is not included in any
of the exemptions herein recited, nor is
there any exemption in the charter of the
company. If there is, it is covered by the
Act of 1870, CHI -.
But it is claimed that the exemption is
created by the various sections eic the Code
abeso seeited, sleseby stock of incorpor-
ated institutions are made liable to taxa
ton, and where stock represents property
both cannot be taxed. It is contended, in
answer to this, that a proper and intelli-
gent construction of all the sections of the
Code and Supplements, bearing on this
subject, will show that these enactments
relate to the collection of the State tax on
the capital stock of the company, and on
the stock of nonresident stockholders, at
the place of business of the corporation.
See Code, Art. II, sec. 105; Sup, Art. 81,
sec. 1867. The Act of 1e47, Oh. 266, Sec
5, the original Act on this subject, sustains
fully this position. Indeed, any other con-
struction would make the different sections
of the Code entirely discordant and ire
concilable. All the cases alluded to arose
where the property and stock was all with
in the same municipality, and the opin-
ions on this subject, like that in 5th Gill,
were mere o6iter dicta, because the question
was not before the Court.
But if wrong in this view, then the ex-
emption of this property from taxation
where located is only claimed by an infer
ence or implication. This is not sufficient.
The exemption must be express. AS the
taxing power is for the good of the whole
people, Courts will never presume that it
has been parted with, and the deliberate
purpose of the State to abandon it must
appear. 9Th Gill, 237; 4th Peters, SCI and
563.
But it is commended that the whole prin-
ciple claimed here has been decided in the
appeal of the P.W. & B. R. r. Co., Us.
Hartford county, 10 G. & J. 155, and in the
case of same ps. Bayliss, I'd Gill, then it
was claimed, in substance, that because
the stock was exempt by legislative enact
ment, and as stock represented the proper
ty, the latter was likewise exempt. This
was an inference, but the Court declared
the exemption must be express, and so the
property of the Railroad Company lying
in Hartford county was taxed.
WIf brother Wells, of the Port To-
bacco Times, will pay us the visit he has
been so long owing, we will talk over the
matter of his last leading editorial. We
see that his time is very fully occupied
with his new friend of the Haaatingto,aia1a
and the Road Supervisors, but he must
not forget his old friend.-Mor5. Gazette.
We have not forgotten our obligations
to our old friend, and we anticipate a
great deal of pleasure in paying that visit,
when an opportunity shall offer, which we
hope will be very soon.
WAn election for Mayor and city Off
GERS took place at Annapolis on Monday
Loot Hitizen,s tick ct waa in the field in