The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1892-03-10
FULL TEXT OF DECISION IE CASE
OF W. l. W. 3. 3. 90. VS.. B. I.
ALSBR00K, SHERIFF.

No. 81, HALIFAX Co.,
February Term, 1892.
Wilmington and Weldon Railroad
Company, (Appellant).
against
B. /. Alsbrook, Sheriff.
Clark, j. The question presented
by this appeal is the right OF the
State to tax the branch railroad
from Halifax to Kinston, which was
constructed by the plaintiff corpo-
ration in 1882 and in the succeeding
years.
Z In the case of the Wilmington
md Weldon Railroad Co. VS.. Reid,
> Wall. 264, it was held that the
charter of the plaintiff, which was
granted in 1888, exempted all its
property from taxation. The cor
rectness of that decision, and its
fnality at least in the aspect in
which it was then presented to the
court, are not called in question by
this litigation. The defendant, for
the purposes of this case, comedies
that it protects from taxation, un-
der State authority, all the proper,
ty of the main line-of said road and
such property as may be necessary
for it's successful operation; but it
contends that this branch railroad
extending from Halifax to Kinston,
IS miles, is no part of the property
necessary for the operation Of the
plaintiff company; that it was not
contemplated by the charter of
1888, nor within the exemption
conferred thereby, nor within the
purview of the decision of the
United States Supreme Court in
the case of Wilmington and Weldon
Railroad Co. VS.. Reid, supra. The
legislature and the Railroad Com
mission being of that opinion, the
latter, under legislative author
ity, have assessed said railroad for
taxation.
Under proper proceedings the sum
assessed on so much of said branch
railroad as lies within the county Of
Halifax has been placed on the tax
list for said county. The plaintiff
obtained restraining order against
the collection of the tax which the
court below dissolved and from the
latter order the plaintiff appeals te
this court.
The right of taxation is the high
est prerogative of sovereignty. 1t
exercise is necessary to the very lit
and existence of the State. Its pos
session marks-regardless of tn
nominal form of government-th'
real nature of the government
whether republican, monarchical O.
autocratic. 1t is the power of tn
rursn to which the power OF tn
sword lis mere sequence. IL seem
anomalous therefore that such
power should be capable of aliena
ton in perpetuity by the Legislature
in free State, and that any portio
of it could be irrevocably bargaine
away for any consideration, to
corporation or any one else. Nor
especially in case like the presen
where the contract is claimed t
have been made by legislator
elected for a term of one year an
the alienation of the taxing powe
is asserted to be perpetual, and ths
.,sfor countless ages, indeed till til
final catastrophe of all things, SUI
ceeding generations are to guar
and protect at their own expens
the property of the corporation witt
out receiving from it any of the col
tributions which all others are cal
ed upon to make for the mainte1
ance and support of a civil COVER
ment. A contract of such natur
fit were possible between priva
individuals. would be relieve
against in any court of equity. Fl
4 grant of perpetual exemption fro
! taxation has indeed been held inv
lid by courts of the highest respect
bility. Brewster VS.. Hough, 10 N.
- 1873; Mott VS.. Railroad, 80 Pa. s
9; Bank VS.. Debolt, l Ohio St. SO
Knoup VS.. Bank, Ibid SOB; Park
VS.. Redfeld, 10 Conn. 400, and the
are others. In Mott VS.. Railros
supra, the learned Chief JUST
says that a sale "te one class
citizens of an exemption from
taxes forever, thus throwing all
public burdens upon others for
time to come, is such a plain, p
pable and open violation OF
rights and liberties Of the peo
and such a clear case of TRANSFER
ing the just limits Of legislat
power, that the judiciary is bou
to pronounce such an act null 8
void" In Brewster VS.. Hou
supra. Parker, c. j., holds the So
views and points out the mater
difference between the right OF
leoislature tn grant land, or COZ