The New York herald., 1873-02-16
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

WASHINGTON, d. c., Feb. Is, 1878.
No. 124 Humphreys ct al. vs. Pegues-Appeal
from the Circuit Court for South Carona.-This
appeal involves the question Of the right OF the
State Of South Carolina to tax the property of the
Cheraw and Darlington Railroad Company lying
within that State. In 1855 the Legislature of the
State so amended the charter of the Northeastern
Railroad Company as to exempt its stock and real
estate, then thereafter issued or owned by it,
from all taxation during the continuance of its
charter as so amended. In 1868 the Cheraw and
Darlington company was granted all the powers,
rights and privileges granted by the charter Of the
Northeastern company, and succeeded TO its fran
chises. One section of the act OF 1858 provided
that section OF a former act, reserving to the
State the right to rescind, repeal, &C., should
not operate to affect the charter then granted.
BY an act OF 1868, under the new cOnstitu-
tion of that year, the Legislature passed an act
repeating all exemptions from taxation and i'm
posed taxes on the road. This action was the re-
suit, the road cOntending that its charter is an
irrepealable contract forever exempting the prop
erty from taxation. The decision below was IN
favor OF the road, and the appellants, the tax oti
GERS Of the State, bring the case here insisting
that the legislation tmpatrs no contract between
the State and the company, inasmuch as the right
to repeal modify or amend any previously granted
charter or existing exemption from taxation has
been and Is at all times Inherent and mex tingush
able in the legislative authority OF the State. In
respect to this case 1t Is said there was cOnsid
Grafton for such grant. Had the exemptions
been a part OF the original charter OF the
Northeastern company, or hal new duties
been imposed upon 1t in consequence OF
the exemption, 1t is conceded there might
be reason iOr holding the contract irrevocable by
the State, without the consent of the company.
But such Is not the fact. The company succeeds to
an old charter, which had no clause OF exemption,
but was amended some years later the State OF its
own accord giving new privilege, not contem-
plated by the original charter, and without exact
ing q single new service or duty No public benefit
was to be derived from the new grant. and nothing
was imposed as consideration. On the contrary.
1t released the corporation from public burden.
which Is imposed on all natural persons holding
property within the State. The company relies on
the case OF the Wilmington Railroad vs. Ried, from
North Carolina, argued and reported last Winter
Q3 Wall, 264) TO sustain the inviOlablty OF the
contract Of exemption, and insists that the clause
expressly declaring that clause OF former act
reservng the power to repeal should not apply to
the amended charter OF 1858, puts the intenaed
emption beyond the possibility OF doubt.
No. I25. Tomlinson ct al. vs. Jessup; Nc. 234 City
Council Of Charleston ct al. VS.. Jessup; No. l26,
TOmlinson ct al. VS.. Branch Sons & Co., and 1856,
City Council OF Charleston ct al Branch ct al
Appeals from the Circuit Court of South Carolina
These causes present the same general question as
j. w. Melton. Attorney General OF South Carolina;
ID. H. Chamberlain, ID. 7. Corbin and p. Phillips for
appellants; T. G. Barker, Porter 4 Conner and A.
G. Magrath for appellees.
The Court win sit Saturday, the 18th, to hear the
closing arguments In the cases, and will then ad-
jOurn over to the oath to bring up and dispose of
cases under advisement