, 1890-07-10
Cooley on Taxation second edition,


pages II and %.
For tho foregoing reasons | do not
think that II was within the power OF
congress to exempt tho right OF way OF
the Northern Pacific Railroad Company
in this state, excepting upon the ground
that ,hS ,ot.ro, y was ,ovornnoO, an agency of
that that '''Sr%1 r"ason s'''ia'"S i would Id To- So
against public policy to tax IL, but the
exemption clearly shows that II was
not made upon any such ground, and II
made upon such ground, IL would oprr-
ate unequally, and the state Of Wash
inglon would not stand upon equal
footing with tho state OF Minnesota
where II has always been lhe subject ot
taxation,
therefore think 1t eau not bo doubted
but that the state Of Washington has
iull power to tax the ruadbod and right
of way oil the Northern Pacific Railroad
Company, unless by its compact with
the United States, or by its constitution,
1t has surrendered the night so TO do.
| Any other conclusion would, 10 my
mind. lead to an absurd result, ior if
congress could legitimntoly exempt the
right OF way of tho Northern Pacific
Railroad Company from taxation la tile
state Of Washington, tho exemption
itself would constitute valuable fran
chise, which franchise would itsolf be
tIe ieBltlHutc buolect VI stale hAuuoI.
SEQ Cooley on TaNation-Scconde edi-
tion, pages q and %.
San Jose Gas Company v. January
81 Cal, Ga
Spring Valley Co. v. schottlee- 81
Cal, II.
Cooley on Taxation. pages "a, 81, $40
and 3s3.
There Is certainly nothing in subdi-
vision second, section 4. of the enabling
M In. atthAtvtaifan aaennA
OF the compact with the United
States, which can bo construed
as surrender by the state
OF its right to tax tho right OF way Of
this railroad company.
IL remains to be seen whether the peo-
pie, by the constitution, have made any
such exemption.
Section /, article 7, of the constitution,
provides as follows; IAN property In
the state, not exempted under the laws
OF the United States or under tho con-
stitution, shall bo taxed In proportion to
Its value, to be asccrtained as provided
by law" 1t Is contended by some that
the right of way OF the n. L. X. X. Co. is
exempted from taxation under the laws
OF the United states, and therefore the
above language of our consti tuition has
exempted IL In this state. do NOT think
that section will warrant any such con-
struction. As before shown, the ex-
emption contained in the charter OF the
n. L. X. X. Co. could not and was not
intended by congress to extend TO the
state of Washington, and tho right OF
way OF that railroad Is not exempted
from taxation in the state OF Washing
ton by any law of the United States.
The foregoing provision of the constitu.
tion did not 20 into effect until We be.
came a state, and that moment the ex-
emption in the charter ceased to be
operative. and there was therefore left
no law of the United States or
empting tho right OF way from taxation
within the state. But further than this, II
the language of our constitution will
bear the construction contended ior, as
above, then 1t amounts to public grant
of a valuable franchise made by the peo-
pie to private corporation. such grants
are always strictly construed In favor Of
the public, and against the person claim
ing the grant. Says tho supreme court
of the United States in tho case Of Du-
buque VS.. Pacific Railroad Company. 23
How, SO. In speaking of public grants
"lf words would fairly admit OF different
meanings 1t would be right to adopt that
which is moro favorable TO the interest
of the public"
See also River Bridge va Warren
Bridge-if Pet, 5fi.
United States vs.. Arrendendo-6 Pet,
1885.
Kimball vs.. McPherson--46 Cal. 103.
Cooley's constitutional limitations,
pages ass and i90.
Leayenworth railroad VS.. United Sts'ss
% U. s., 73S.
Currier VS.. NJ. & c. railroad-il Ohio
State, 22s.
II is incredible thar the people OF the
state of Washington intended. when they
adopted the constitution Of the state. to
exempt from taxation the right Of way
of the Northern Pacific Railroad Com
pany, n corporation which has received
more at the hands OF the public than all
other corporations, and at the same time
impose upon those corpora
tions which have received moth
ing the full burden of state
taxation. They did not 50 intend it
when they voted to adopt that constitu-
tion. The words do not, In my opinion,
fairly admit of that construction, and
they certainly do not express that mean.
ing in clear and ungmbiguous terms, and
nothing but the olenrest and most ex-
plicit words will suffice to create the ex-
emption contendei for.
am, therefore, of the opinion that the
right of way of the Northern Pacific
Railroad Company, together with all the
superstructure of every kind erected
thereon, is the legitimate subject ol state
taxation, and should lie so assessed and
taxed this year. Respectfully,
w. q. JONES, Attorney General.