The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1894-03-21
IT is A GREAT VICTORY
THE STATE WINS IN THE RAlLSOAO
CASES.

Judge SinaoQs on'S StropS Decision AGalnsV
the Rsttrs ads-They Must Psy Their
Taxes and the Cost-Gov. Tillman Thinks
1t VIII End the Fight.
COLUMBIA, March 15.-The State Of
South Carolina and the present admin
istration have gained big and decisive
victory ID the fight with the railroads
for the payment of taxes as assessed by
the State Board of Equalization. Judge
SlmontoD, in decision rendered at
Charleston on Tuesday, the most i'm
portant portions Of which are published
ordered that the South Carolina Road
paw what is due the State and the costs
of the proceedings. 1t is conceded that
this decision is practically one against
all the roads which have been resisting
the payment, and the State government
now looks for the railroads to begin to
settle without further fighting. 1t IS not
thought that any appeal will be taken
to the Supreme Court OF the United
States.
It is not necessary to review the pro-
tracted fight which has been IN pro
gress between the State and the rail-
roads for over two years. 1t oegan,
however, by the State Board of Equali-
Zation taking the position that the
railroads were not paying taxes in pro-
portion to the amount paid 5y the az
ersge citizen. The returns which the
roads had made were increased to what
was a6judged to be about so per cent.
of the value of the property. 1t Wll! De
remembered that the roads refused TO
pay except on the returns which they
had made aud which they claimed were
fair and equitable. A long fight IN the
courts resulted, but the matter has new
er before come up squarely on its mer-
its. Heretofore all the cases have been
on technicalities, and the State has not
been wholly successful in these fights.
These cases were immaterial 10 the
main issue, onwhich the administration
was confident of winning.
Judge Simonton's decision is thor
oueh knockout and the roads cannot
fail to see it in that light. Governor
Tillman was in good humor when the
reporters saw him yesterday and asked
him about the decision of Judge Simon
ton. 81 regard the decision" he SAID,
sas the conclusion of all the railroad
litigation. The case which has been
decided was a test case. and We nave
won. have felt confident all the time
that we would win"
When asked as to whether he thought
there would be an appeal, ne SAID ne
did not think so, at least IN the case OF
the South Carolina Road. Judge Sim
onton, he concluded. is the boss Of that
road and consequently the boss OF Re
ceiver Chamberlain, who is 8 creature
of Judge Simonton'S court. Whatever
Judge Simonton orders must be done.
The other roads, which the decision in
directly affects, lnasmuch as the decls-
ion In regard to them will be the same
as the South Carolina Road, may take
an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Governor Tillman, however, thinks
that all the roads Will pay what they
owe at once, and avoid any proceedings
which might be taken to forfeit their
charters, the last Legislature having
passed an Act authorizing the forfeit
ure of the charters of the roads which
resist the payment Of taxes imposed on
them by the State.
The total amount due the State by
the roads is about S2OOOOO. Ihls
amount is the difference between what
the State has all along claimed was due
and the amount which the roads have
admitted was due. The roads have ev-
ery year paid the amount they admit
ted to be due.
State Treasurer Bates will not have
to borrow money for some time to meet
the claims against the State.
The title Of the case declde7 by u0ge
Simonton was D. e. Chamberlain, re-
ceiYer of the South Carolina Railway
COMPANY, against George H. Walter,
County Treasurer of Charleston, and
Hugh Ferguson, Sheriff CT the same
county.
The complaint sets forth that tbs
road had been returned a' $4,000 per
mile and that the State Board raised
this to $4,000 per mile, also raising the
returns Of the Three Cs Road from
5000 to $1,000 per mile. The bill al
le9es that this assessment is unjust, IN
asnuch as it is above tie assessment
made on the average real and personal
property throughout the State, and
that the State Board Of Equalization
violated the Constitution OF the State,
which provides that all property shall
be taxed in proportion to its value. The
bill further charges that the act OF the
board in raising the assessment IS II
self null and void, and the assessment
is illegal because this is not within the
powers of the board.
The attorneys for the railroad we're
Brawley 6 Barnwell and Mitchell q
Smith, and for the State Attorney Cen
eral Buchanan, Ira B. Jones and Sam
uel Lord.
Judge simonton's decision is as fol-
lows:
It is well at the threshold to define
the limit of the power OF this court
over the subject matter of this suit. 1t
cannot review the assessment made oy
the State officials simply upon the
ground that 1t is excessive. (Ssarllng
Us. the Supervisors, 12l .. S., 549. Nor
can it make new assessment or direct
another to be made. (State Railroad
Tax Cases, 90 u. S, 615) Nor can it
interfere upon the ground that the tax
is illegal. Civilians vs.. AlbaDy 20,
122 y. s., l54; Legion VS.. Alley, 1SO Y. :
177) Nor can it interfere because the
court would prefer and would nave
SCOpLoO d OlASSSuI SSSGSAb. ~ y. tS.'
co. VS.. Massachusetts, 125 U. s, 555;
Davenport National Bank vs.. Super
visors, 1913 U. s., So. $50 long as a
State, BY its laws prescribing the mode
and subject of taxation, does not In
trench upon the legitimate authority
of the Union or violate any right re-
cognlzed or secured by the Constitu-
tion of the United States the Federal
Courts, as between the State and the
citizen, can afford the latter no relief
against State taxation however unjust,
oppressive or onerous II may ne.
(Kirkland VS.. Hotchkiss, 100 U. s, 49l;
Memphis Gas Light Co. VS.. Shelby Co.,
1O9U.S. 3O8.) All these are questions
for the State alone and are within its
police power. But when the oveIval-
ustion of property assessed for taxa
ton has arisen from the adoption OF a
rule of appraisement which conflicts