The Greenville times. [volume] (Greenville, Miss.) 1868-1917, 1886-12-18

A--N'f ~ NfAAs&A 9 fAA lfNoN " IL
lease such lands from taxation,
for, 1t is argued, the Legislature
could not have intended TO relieve
the lands from the burden of debt
imposed upon them by the mort
cages executed by the company,
and then to put on them the bur-
den of taxation.
This suggestion is not without
force, but it is valuable only as an
aid to the construction of the
charter, and the cardinal rule of
construction sull remains that the
grants of privileges are to be
strictly construed and IN eases of
doubt are to be resolved IN favor
OF the State. In other words,
that where the words of a grant
are susceptible of two construc.
tions, either of which is reasona.
BILE and fairly to be drawn, the
courts must assume that the Leg
islature acted with reference to
the known rule, and intended to
grant only those privileges or i'm.
munitles implied in the more re.
stricted sense.
The exemption here is Of taxes,
"to which said company shall be
subject,p it is not of all taxes to
which all or any property owned
by the company, whether necessa-
ry or convenient to its business
or disconnected therefrom. The
business of railway company,
the property and instrumentalities
ordinarily owned and employed
by them, it must be assumed. were
wen known to the Legislative de-
partment, and it must also be as
sumed that the language employ.
ed, was used in reference to such
business and property, unless a
contrary intention is shown.
"All taxes to which said compa.
ny shall be subjectp must there.
fore we think be construed to In.
clude only the taxes due upon the
property of the company necessa.
ry to the construction, equipment,
maintenance and operation of its
road. Many of the authorities
upon the question here involved
are collected by Cody on taxation
l46-l53 and from them we can de.
duce no principle of construction
which would include in the exemp.
tion granted an exemption of the
outlying lands owned by the com.
papy. .Hf fHsrad G.es,N a.naH
The lands involved in this suit
have no sort Of connection with
the business of the company.
They are owned by it only rs the
same character of lands are owned
by q private individual, and for
the same purposes. They were
bought, not to enable the company
to perform any duty it owes to
the public, bat that it might, by
dealing in them make a profit as a
buyer and seller; in this character
VIC find nothing in tile words or
spirit ofthe exemption clause Civ.
ing immunity from taxation. 1i
a Reliance Is placed by the appel.
lee upon the fact that by the act
of March 18th, 1884, page 20, the
Legislature while declaring the
liability of all detached lands own.
ed by railroad companies to taxa.
ton Notwithstanding any exemp.
ton of its cbarters) expressly dc.
clared that "the provisions of the
act shall not have the effect to tax
any of the lands of the Vicksburg
and Memphis Railroad Company
until the LIST of February, 1SSG,p
and also upon the provise to the
second section of the said act of
March 14th, shat the Memphis s.
Vicksburg Railroad Company shall
not be required by the Auditor to
pay any State and county taxes
heretofore due from which IL was
exempted by the provisions of its
charter, or of any act of the Legis.
lature passed prior to the year
1884, .f
RI the act of March IL be con.
strued as exempting these lands,
1t could only be applied to taxes
thereafter arising, for If 1t be said
that this is o Legislative construc.
ton of the charter that the lands
were always exempt in the hands
of the company, the obvious reply
is that thisi is the duty of the court.
The Legislature determines what
the law shall be; the courts say
what the law has been.
Tie act of March 14th by express
terms excluded the Auditor from
considering any exemptions ex.
cept that conferred by the char.
ter, or by acts passed prior to the
year 1884. Without determining
whether any taxes were due to
the State prior to the purchase Of
the lands in 1881 by the company,
we are OF opinion that they then
became taxable; that the Auditor
had no warrant In law for execu-
ting the quit claim under the act
Of March IA, 1884, without payment
of tho taxes due j; and that the
fact that he did make such con.
veyance affords no justification
for his refusal to make the deed
demanded by the petitioners. Tie
Judgment of the court below is
therefore reversed, the demurrer
overruled, and cause remanded.
The Charleston News and Cou.
rier notes the interesting fact that