The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1891-08-27
TIE REBATE TAN.
The Opinion OF the Taxation Of the New
berry Cotton Mills.
1Special TO News and Courier.

Special to News and Courier.l
COLUMBIA, August 21.-The opinion
of Assistant Attorney General ID. \.
Townsend in the NeWberry Cotton
Mills case was given to the press to-
day from the Comptroller Generals
office. The case briefly stated is that
the Newberry Mills were Incorporated
under the Act of 1873, which provided
for its exemption from taxation for a
period OF ten years. By Act of the
Legislature in 1882 this AcG WAS re-
peaIed, hence all the trouble. The
opinion of Mr.. Townsend, which is III
favor Of the mills, is full, plain and mi
mute in detail, and reIearses the statuts
of the case from the passage OF the Act
Of 1873 to the present disposition. 1t
is as follows:
COLUMBIA, August s, 1891.
The Hon. w. H. ElIerbe, Comp
! troller General-Dear Sir: After care
full consideration Of the facts contained
in the petition of the Newberry Cotton
Mills asking that the taxes of the fiscal
year ending sd October, 1889, be re-
| funded, aud of the law in relation
L
you that the said taxes should be re-
funded, except the constitutional two
mills tax set apart for educational pur-
poses. My reasons for this position are
briefly as follows:
The Act of December 20, 1873, pro-
vided that the taxes paid by such man
ufacturers Except the constitutional
2-mill taxi should he refunded for d
term of ten years from the date of the
investment, and there was no other
change in the law in this respect until
the adoption OF the General Statutes
in 1882.
May l, 1882, the General Statutes
were adopted. In subdivision %, of
Section 1863 of the General Statutes,
were incorporated provisions some
what similar to the provisions of the
Act of 1873. The General Statutes con-
tanned also the repeating clause in Sec
ton ,739. 1t might be Interesting to
inquire here whether or not Section
2,739 General Statutes) repealed the
Act OF 1878, but | think it unnecessary
for the determination Of the question
herein involved. On December 2l, 1882,
the Act Incorporating the petitioner
(Newberry Cotton Mills was passed,
(Section IS, Statutes, p. 69,J the 7th Sec
ton Of which is as follows:
Section I. The said corporation shall
be entitled to all benefits enumerated
and contained in an Act entitled an
Act to aid and encourage manufactures,
approved December 20, 1878 for q term
of ten years from the date of its organi-
Zatlon, but only TO the extent of the ar
ticles therein named and the necessary
buildings for the machinery used IN
such manufactures"
The incorporating Act with the 7th
section was passed by the Ley stature,
as already stated, on December p,
1882, several months after the adoption
of the General Statutes (which was
May !, 1882 and in the face Of the re-
pealinS clause contained in Section
2,739. Now, whether the Act Of 1873
was repealed by Section 2,739 or not,
what was the intention of the Legisia-
ture in said ection Of the incorporating
Act? Evidently to confer a special
privilege upon the petitioner and to
make that special privilege a part of
its charter
In passing the Incorporating 4 ct-HI 10
Legislature did not evo;,c,-~-.c::s' - -. siie
way to 23d subdi:.1ien, en leiel ~ lcG any
General ST. III h;Slslon, Section l0O, OF
NIT co.I1i,Scatutes, which we must ad-
sasoae5ntained the general law on the
rsubject; but, ignoring that section en-
tirely, referred in terms (section y to
the Act Of 1873 evidently for the pur-
pose of enumerating and identifying
the benefits which it intended to confer
in special way upon the petitioner, in
addition to such other privileges as
might be conferred by the general law.
Thus it is evident that while the
rights of the petitioner do not rest upon
the Act Of 1873, except so far as 1t is
necessary to use tina Act to ascertain
the benefits enumerated, these rights
do rest upon the said Section of the
Incorporating Act of December p, 1882,
wherein said benefits are enumerated
by its reference to the Act of 1873.
On December 26, 1885, the Leglsla-
ture passed an Act Q9 Stat at Large,
33S, repeating subdivision %, Sec. 1853
of the General Statutes. 1t did profess
to repeal either the Act Of 1878, of Sec
ton I, of the incorporating Act, (De-
cember 2i, 1882 referring to Act 1873.
Was either these repealed by implica-
ton? I think not. The repeating Act
1885 was not intended to do more than
prevent the continuance of the opera
ton. General provisions of the law
contained subdivision %, Section lG9,
of General Statutes. 1t was not in
tended to destroy special privileges
such, for instance, as had been con-
ferred upon the petitioner by the 7th
section of the Incorporating Act of
December 81, 1882.
In support Of this position I cite
State VS. Stall, II Wallace, 43G, where
the Court held that the provisions Of a
special charter or special authority de-
rived from the Legislature are not
affected by general legislation on the
subject. The two are deemed to stand
together; one rs the general law and
the other as the particular law Of the
case.
Hence, I conclude, that the Legisla
ture in referring to the Act OF 1883 as it
did by the 7lh section of the incor-
porating Act of December p, 1882, in
tended to confer, and did confer upon
the petitioner the especial charter
privilege with any particular reference
to the general law contained in Sec
ton 1863 General Statutes, and that the
Act of 1855 referring to Section lG9 had
- effect upon the privilege then con-
ferred. Respectfully, yoar obedient
servant. D. 4. TOWNSEND,
Assistant Attorney General.