The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1878-03-02
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Tax
alton


alton.
4 careful examination of the Opin
ion of the Court Of Appeal, in The
BaIIimorp and Ohio Rrairpad ease
shows that although Il barge am punr
Ul the property Of tn corporation j.
declared To be- subject tn taxation, yrj
OH the whole the np1ion is highly
favorable to the road. The keynote
Of the decision is found in he follow
ing statement contained in the Opin
ion: "ln view, however, Of the fact
that the construction Of this road was
considered by the people Of the State
and by the Legislature as IA great
State object, tending to develop the
wealth and to promote the prosperity
of tie whole State, and particularly
of the city of Baltimore, this Court
has said that liberal rules OF inter
pretatlOn ought to govern in the con
struetion of the privileges and eX
emptionS conferred on the Company,
and not such rules Of Interpretation
as are applicable to the charters of
companies incorporate for the pHru
liar benefit of shareholders. " The
COu,t has, therefore, throughout
given the Com any the benefit Of
"libpral rules Of interpretation
Thus, for Instance, while the charter
invested the Company with ali tine
rights and powers necessary to the
/ construction am: repair Of a railroad
from, the city of BAI.imlrp to some
suitable point on the OHIO river,
yet it does not include the supply OF
the road vi h rolling stock within
that grant Of power, bat in another
section gives the Company he power
"to purchase with the funds Of said
f Company, and place on any railroad
construction by them under this act,
all machines, wagons, vehicles or
carriages Of any decriptions whatsO
ever, which they may deem neces
sary or proper for the purpose; uf
| transportation on said road" AS
! the grant of power was not to make
the rolling stock, but to purchase it,
Mr.. GWinn argued that the machine
! shops in which the rOal ndmuflr-
! lures Its rolling sto.k could not be
! considered aI covered by the charter
exemption, but thi. point is not even
noticed in the opinion of the Court.
! Again, since the grant of power WAS
| for the construction of road to The
Ohio river, it was argued that with
| the attainment Of that end the char.
ter exemption ended, and that all
| the accumulation of property outside
of the works constructed by the Com
pany for that specific purpose was
| liable to taxation. But here, also
the Court took Il large view of the
charter privileges of the Company
and extended the eXemptiO to all
| the works constructed for the accom-
mediation of the business of the road.
1t is only in regard to the property
held by the Company altogether out
side Of any 0ftne franchises, liberaily
construed, which were conferred up.
on the Company by the act of 1926
that the taxing power of the State i,
admitted, The act OF 1885. under
which the road obtained S3.0J), ,O0J
from the State, contained as one OI
its provisions the decIarotion of the
right Of the State to tax the property
of the road. and it was argued that
| the acceptance by the road OF the aid
! so conditioned was an assent TO the
! taxing power thus asserted, hut on
! this point the Court has decided in
favor Of the road.
/ In regard to the elevators, the
| Court contents itself with announc
ing II rule Of Interpretation, and it,
specific application will without
doubt be the subject of fresh argu.
ment in the courts. The C lurt states
that 50 for as they are necessary f0i
the business of the Company as Il
common carrier they are exempt
nut lit has no right to own and use
these structres tor tAc storage of,grair
and freight after the 0Wnar 0c "cn-