The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-11-05

subdivision %, Section ., of the Act re-
ferred Ito law which had been repealed
in toto
lit is impossible, after examining the
Acts of the General Assembly of 1899
to escape the conclusion that i'm the mind
of that body. the special board for the
appl'aisement and assessment of the raid
road property was constituted of the
three persons who had been elected or APP
pointed Railroad Commissioners. We
have seen the provision o. the Machinery
Act of that year, adopted notwithstand-
ing that the Institution of the Corporation
Commission had been determined upon.
SO in Chapter II, of that year, the Rev
en1Ie Act, Sections Al, II, 43 and Al,
Isailroad Commissioners alone are i1l-
structed with regard to the appraisement
and assessment OF railroad property.
That Act was ratified and was cf force
March s, 1899 Amid in Section 60 Of
the same Act, the power to revise the
assessment for taxation of railroad prop
erty is given to the Railroad Commission
or any body succeeding to their powers.
The Act creating the CORPORATION Conn
mission had been ratified two days before
this Act. If the General Assembly I'm
tended that Commission i'm the wors
''any body succeeding to their powers -
is it not reasonable to suppose that It
would have said SO, and would not have
left it to Inference only?
So. also, chapter 6S7 of the laws OF
1899 authorizes the Railroad Commits
| sion, the Corporation Commission or
such board as shall succeed to their du
! ties, to assess property which has rS-
! capped taxation This Act was ratified
and was Cf force 9Th March, 1899. II
| recognizes the existerce Of the Railroad
| Commission and cf its powers, and leaves
to Inference entirely the idea THAT one IS
| substituted for the other. If no other
! Act creates the Corporation Commiss on
into a ioard for the appraisement and as
sessment Of railroad property this Act
oanfn do so by indrecti0n.
! Ut must be borne i'm mind that tie leg
| islation NOW under discussion Is not
remedial legislation. In all such eases
courts labor to arrive at the benetcent liz
tent of the legislation and seek to secure
| its full effect. Commonwealth vs.. kim
| ball, "a Pick, 81, and cases collected IN
| % Am. and Ing Enc. Of Law, 300, 362,
/ n Iden, 3oSl. We are constituting stat
! lrtes imposing taxes and burdens on tine
Taxpayer. I'm all such the rule IS chang
| ed THE highest power that a sovereign,
| the law making power, can confer is the
power to tax, and every Act comforting
that power must express it plainly ana
the Act 50 expressing it nRIst be strictly
construed - Sutherland on Statutory
Construction, 4J9, etc.
In every case Of doubt such a sta+ute
is construed against the government. j.
s. vs.. Wiggleswcrth, , Story, 800.
Says Lord Chancellor Cairns. IN Par
| .ingtom vs.. Attorney General, l.. r., A.
! Ell. L.. 100. 122: As ] understand the
principle Of all fiscal legislation is this:
! If the person sought TO be taxed CON, :
within the letter of the law, he must
/ be taxed, however great the hardship
may appear to the judicial mind to o..
/ On the other hand, if the Grown seeking
to recover the tax can not bring the
subject within the letter Of the law, tine
subject is free, however apparently with
| in the spirit of the law the case might
otherwise appear 10 be. In other words,
if there is admissible in any statute what
/ is called an equitable construction, GER
tainly such a construction is not admassl-
| bic in a taxing statute when you can
simply adhere to tile words Of the stat
ute"
see also L. S. W Wigglesworth, ,
Story, 500; Net & Irvine Co. vs.. Worth
ington, al Z. S, Al; Rice vs.. The T..
s., So Fed. r., $40.
On the whole the conclusion can not
be resisted that either Intentionally or
accidentally tine Corporation Commission
was not clothed with the power of APP
praising and assessing railroad property,
and that~their attempted action herein
complained of is without authority OF
law
1T is to he regretted that this conclu'
sion renders unnecessary the discussion
of the merits of this case, presented so
ably and fully by counsel on both Sides.
The conclusion reached, whilst it stops the
hand Of the court now, simply postpones
the decision ON the grave questions I'M
deriving the cases 1ais postponement,
however, VIII riot operate to excuse the
compliments from the payment Of taxes.
Under Russell vs.. Aver No. Co, $50, 1870,
! the, provisions of the Revenue Act of
! 1897, are in full force and the taxes
! therein provided must be paid.
Let the injunctions issue as prayed
| for i'm each bill.
CHARLES IL. SIMONTON,
Circuit Judge.
November 3, 1899.