Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1883-04-17


in the cause Of the Chesapeake and Ohio
Railway Company against the Auditor,
in which the court held that certain
exemptions from taxation granted to
the railroad company were unconstitu-
tional and void, and that the act OF the
Legislature under which the company
claimed to be exempt from taxation
was In violation of section l article s of
the constitution Of 1853.
Second-Thatl the Court at the same
time decided that no exemption uchdtev-
er from tardtion could be made by the
Legislature except as to property used
for educational, literary, scientific, re-
ligious or charitable purposes and pub
lie property, including cemeteries.
1t must be remembered that before
this decision was rendered there were
complaints from one end of the State
to the other that the Chesapeake and
Ohio Railroad Company, with its i'm
mense capital, property and franchises
was not compelled to pay any part OF
the taxes of the State, and enjoyed i'm
munities which were not accorded to
any citizen. Accordingly, an assess
ment was made upon the property OF
the company, Notwithstanding the fact
its charter expressly exempted it from
taxation; but before the taxes so assess
ed could be collected an injunction was
obtained from the Circuit Court Of
Ohio county rohibiting the Auditor
from proceeding to enforce the collec-
ton. This Injunction was perpetuated
by the Circuit Court; the Auditor appeal
ed to the Supreme Court of Appeals, and
that Court by a unanimous decision
reversed the Circuit Court and dis
solved the injunction. 1t Is here peril
nent to inquire of these gentlemen who
have had so much to say on the sub
Of taxation, without knowing any
thing about it, if they are of the opinion
that the decision in the Chesapeake
and Ohio railroad case was right? If
they believe it was right, will they tell
us what provision there is in the COZ
stitution which requires the Chesa-
peake and Ohio Railroad to be taxed,
and yet allows John Smiths OK or his
ass to be exempted.
We apprehend that the Court decid-
ed all property must be td.red except
such as the constitution In terms pro-
yides may be exempted, that the deci-
sion settles the question not only as to
the property of the Chesapeake and
Ohio Railroad Company, but as to all
property, no matter by whom owned.
Whether this decision from legal
standpoint was q correct one or not, 1t
is nevertheless bound to be respected,
and the law, if enforced at all, ought to
be enforced with respect to the decision
of the tribunal which is established for
the purpose of determining what the
law is. That being the case Governor
Jackson, had he remained silent upon
the subject, would have failed to per-
form his constitutional duty, and had
the Auditor refused to recognize the de-
cisiOn of the court after his attention
had been called to it, he too would have
failed to do his duty. Nearly every
article which has been published on the
subject does not make any reference
whatever as to the requirements OF the
laws in the premises, but simply at
tempts to show that it is not to the in
terest of certain of our citizens to have
the law enforced.
The Point Pleasant Register, in an
editorial in its last issue, says: with
a little more sympathy for the tax
PAYERS this decision of the court, 50 OBJ
noXiOus TO the farmer and mechanic,
might have been easily disregarded."
That may be true; but suppose the ex-
ecutive officers were togo little further
and extend some CT the same kind OF
sympathy to the Chesapeake and Ohio
railroad company, to which corpora
ton, we have no doubt, the decision is
fully as obnoxious as it is to any farmer
or mechanic in the State, what would
the Register say then?
The same paper says, THE poor man
who, 10y industry, has accumulated
barely years supply of provisions for
his family and now finds it taxed, when
it has always been exempt, will not be
slow to'diScover this innovation"
These demagogical references to the
poor man are almost two ridiculous to
be noticed. In the first place, how
many poor men lay by a years supply
of provisions at time? Suppose the
poor man, by industry and economy,
has laid by few hard earned dollars,
Which he chooses to keep on hand on
the lst of January did not the law re.
quire it TO he taxed? Or suppose poor
man from Ohio county bought large
supply of the products of one ofthe poor
Mason county farmers, did not the same
law that would have exempted it in the
hands of Mason county man require the
Ohio county man to pay taxes on it?
We emphatically deny that the eXemp-
tons which the law regulating the as
sessment of taxes provided for, were
ever of any benefit to the poor man-on
the contrary, we claim that they bene-
fitted only the weather. class and We
assert that in proportion to their tax
able property the poorer classes have al
ways been compelled to pay their due
share of taxes. The law as laid down
by the Supreme Court will have the
effect of making taxation what the con-
stitutiOn requires it to be-equal aud
unifOrm-an We fail to see how the
poor man can be hurt by requiring all
tax payers, whether individuals or cor
pOratinns to pay taxes what they have.
Leaving the constitutional question out
Of the case will the Re is er II US why
the manufacturer or farmer should be
eXempt?
Why should the Riverside or Belmont
nail company, with its thousands of
dollars worth of manufactured product
on hands, be exempt, while the boiler
the nailfeeder, the roller, and in fac
every man who contributes directly to
the manufacture of the product, is not
exempt? Why should the Ohio county
or Mason county farmer, with his hun
dreds of bushels of grain and tons of
hay, be exempt, while the man who
plOwed the ground and raised and
harvested the grain, and who is so un-
fortunate as to own little household
and kitchen furniture, be taxed on all he
has? 1t will not do TO say that these
exemptions must be granted in order to
encourage manufactures and agricul-
ture, for you could with just as much
good sense exempt the laborer because
you want to encourage people to work.
OHIO COUNTY TAX. PAYER.