The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1891-08-27
5, THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 1891.
TIL; REBATE TAX.
The Opinion OF the Taxation of the New
berry Cotton Mills.
ESPECIAL to News and Courier. I

Especial to News and Courier.l
COLUMBIA, August 2l.-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, whicn provided
! for its exemption FROM taxation for q
period of ten Years. BY Act of the
Legislature in 1852 this Act was re-
pea!ed, hence all the trouble. The
opinion of Mr.. Townsend, which is in
favor of the mills, is full, plain and mi
mute in detail, and rehearses 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. Ellerbe, 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 81 October, 1889, be re-
funded, and of the law in relation
thereto, I have the honor 10 state to
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 suc -uan-
ufacturers Except the constl. .utlonal
2-mill taxi should be refunded for =
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 1G9 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 2,739. It 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2,739 General Statutes) repealed the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 p, 1882,
the Act incorporating the petitioner
New berry Cotton Mills was passed,
(Section is, Statutes, p. &c. the 7th Sec
ton of which is as follows:
Section I. The said corporation shal!
be entitled to all benefits enumerated
and contsined in an Act entitled an
Act to aid and encourage manufactures,
approved December 20, 1878 for a 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 III
such manufactures"
The incorporating Act with the 7th
section was passed by the Legislature,
as already stated, on December q,
1882, several months after the adoption
of the General Statutes (Which was
May l, 1852, 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 Legisla-
ture in said ection Of the incorporating
Act? Evidently to confer special
privilege upon the petitioner and to
make that special privilege part of
its charter.
In passing the Incorporating Act the
Legislature did not even refer in any
way to 23d subdivision, Section $50, of
General Statutes, which we must ad-
nit contained the general law on the
subject; but, ignoring that section en-
tirely, referred in terms (section y to
the Act of 1873 evidently for the pur-
pose of enumeratiug and identifying
the benefits which it intended to confer
in a 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 it 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 81, 1882,
wherein said benefits are enumerated
by its reference to the Act of 1878.
On December 26, 1885, the Leglsla-
ture passed al Act % Stat at Large,
333 3333, y repealing subdivision %, Sec. lG9
of the General Statutes. 1t did profess
to repeal either the Act of 1873, Of Sec |
tion I, Of the incorporating Act, (De-
cembe- q, 1882 referring TO Act 1873. |
Was either these repealed by implica- |
ton? | 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 1863,
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 Ith
section of the incorporating Act of
December q, 1882.
In support of this position 1 cite
State VS. Stall, II Wallace, 1876, 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 as the general law and
,he other as the particular law OF the
case.
Hence, conclude, that the Legisla-
.ure in referring to the Act OF 1883 as 1t
lid by the 7th section of the incor-
,orating Act of December 81, 1882, in
ended to confer, and did confer upon
he petitioner the especial charter
privilege with any particular reference
o the general law contained in Sec
ion 1863 General Statutes, and that the
Act of 1855 referring to Section lG9 had
10 effect upon the privilege then con-
erred. Respectfully, your obedient
eryaut. D. a. TOWNSEND,
Assistant Attorney General.