The Abbeville messenger. (Abbeville, S.C.) 1884-1887, 1885-12-15
RIGHTS OF THE RAILROADS.
An Important Decision by the State
Supreme Court.
From the News and Courier.l

lumbia and Greenville Railroad Compa.
ny against w. Fl. Gibbes, treasurer oil
Richland County, is very important
one, as it atiirms the constitutionality
Of the law, making the railroad compa-
MES contribute to the support OF the
railroad commission. The decision is
written by Judge MCGOWAN. and is con-
Cured in by Chief Justice Simpson.
Judge McIyer dissents, but states that
he has not bad time to give fully his
grounds Of dissent.
The Columbia and GrecnRillo Rail-
road in paying taxes to the defendant
as treasurer Of Richland County paid
its proportion of the expenses of the
railroad commission assessed under the
Act of appropriation approved Decem-
ber "a, 1884. The item was paid under
protest and this action was brought un-
der Section 26S Of the General Statutes
to recover on the ground that the Act
under which the sum was collected was
unconstitutional. The defendant, Treas
urer Gibbes, answered ,nying that the
law was unconstitutional or that the
amount was illegally and wrongfully
collected. The case was heard before
Judge Witherspooa who, after hearing
counsel for the railroad and the attor-
ney general for the defendant said
that he must conclude that the assess
ment under Section 1,453 Of the Gen
eral Statutes is the imposition of on
extra or additional tax. which imposi-
tion was illegal and unjust and in viola
ton Of the Constitution, in Sections %
and SO Of Article and Section ! Of Ar
ticle TX. The assessment, in his opin-
ion, was tax. Under the charge Of
the Judge there was verdict for the
plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
The case was heard by the Supreme
Court at the April term.
In the view Of the Supreme Court the
single question is whether the Act Of
1879, under and by authority Of which
the appropriation was made, is binding
on the plaintiff corporation, or wholly
null and void, being unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court, on a previous oc-
casion, declared that statute could not
be pronounced void on the ground Of
repu snancy to the Constitution, unless
The repugnancy be clear and the con-
clusion that it exists is inevitable. It
seems to the Court that the question is
the plaintiff corporation had
any vested right of which the exaction
Of was an Infringement.
All corporations are artificial bodies,
merely creatures Of the State, and as,
the State may or may not call them into
existence so she may limit their exist
ence aud mould and form them in pre-
else accordance with her view Of what
is right or polite. A corporation is
therefore purely statutory. 1t has no
physical existence. The State may
grant franchises in such manner as to
confer vested rights and exclude herself
from afterwards abridging them by leg
sla!ion, but such grant must be clear,
explicit and unconditional. If the
State III creating corporation express
" reserves the right to amend the
charter generally, or in any particular
indicated, and such charter is accepted,
hat corporation may not afterwards OBJ
ect to the exercise Of chat reserved
power subject to which the charter was
A certificate from the secretary of
State shows that on November %, 1850,
he Greenville Road was reorganized
md formed into new corpocation.
There was on the Statute Book Of the
State at that time general law-part Of
which is called the General Railroad
Law-declairing that every railroad
company should contribute its just pro-
'ortion towards the payment OF the ex-
,enses of the railroad commission thex !
n existence. Whether an exaction by
he State upon q corporation is or is not
must depend on the char
lcter of the rights with which the State
,as endowed the corporations. If it
las been invested with no rights Of
which the exaction would be an in
the Court does not clearly
ZEE how it could be called unconstitu- |
ional any more than the provisions in
most railroad charters that the COM