Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1899-03-25
LAURENS MILL CASE.

LAURENS MILL CASE.
Opinion of the Supreme Court Court Re.
lating to Tax Exemption.
August Kohn in News and Courier.
The supreme court decided an i'm.
portant question on Monday. In nut
she'll, it decides that tax exemptions
granted prior to the adoption of the
new constitution are null and void
and that exemptions granted since the
adoption of the new constitution have
to be upon direct vote. Several COM
munities have exempted cotton mills
and other enterprises from taxation
prior to the new constitution, and the
supreme court holds that these exemp,
tions are null and void. 1t remains to
be seen whether any taxpayer will
take action in the matter.
The decision jnst rendered was pre-
pared by Justice Pope, and refers di'
rectly to the Laurens cotton mill but
the principle is applicable to all such
enterprises and cases.
The opinion begins in this way:
"This is an application for the writ
of mandamus addressed to this court In
the exercise or its original jurisdiction .
Then the decision goes on to state that
the relator resides in Laurens and
wishes taxes paid on the Laurens Cot
ton mill, which has been excused from
paying taxes under a resolution adop-
ted in 1893 that all cotton mills would
be excused from municipal taxes for IL
years if they located in Laurens. No
ordinance was passed until 1898. The
Laurens Cotton mill was incorporated
in 1896.
The court then goes on to upon
the presentation of the petition for the
writ in question the usual order was
passed requiring the respondent to
make return thereto. The respondent,
the city council of Laurens, made re.
turn, virtually admitting all the allega-
tions of fact act up in petition, but in
sisting that it's correspondent was not
liable TO pay any taxes for the year
1896, 1897, 1898. But the return OF
the Laurens cotton mills denied that
the relator was citizen or owned
property in the city Of Laurens; de-
MED the allegations of fact set out in
the petition, alleging that it had been
assessed to pay taxes for the years
1896, 1897 and 1898 and 80 on. On
the 18th day of December, 1898, the
relator demurred to the returns of the
respondents. By this step he admits
the allegations of fact as set out in the
returns. So far as the city of Laurens,
or the city council of Laurens, or its
clerk and treasurer, are concerned, the
demurrer TO their return is we'll taken.
"There was no power in the city
council of Laurens in the year 1898 to
exempt or to promise to exempt fac.
tories from taxation upon their location
in the city of Laurens. Such a step
was in palpable violation of the con-
stitutioD adopted in 1868, for the in:
strument required all property, real
and personal, to be assessed for taxa,
ton. 1t is useless to multiply words
in the discussion of this point, for it
had recently been considered in the
case of the Germania Savings Bank vs.
Town of Darlington, SO S. c., and the
case is practically conclusive OF this
The court then goes on to say: "1i
the city council had no authority to re,
lease the property of Laurens Cotton
mills, the instructions of the clerk and
treasurer were illegal, null and void.
"There never was any power in this
state after 1858 to release property from
taxation until the constitution of 1895
gave cities and towns such power for
the limited period of FIVE years, and
upon the matter being submitted 10
the voters of such city or town for
their approval"
The court then takes up the various
legal details and concludes its opinion
thus:
"It is ordered, therefore, that the re-
turn of all respondents, except the
Laurens Cotton mills, be held INSULT
cient, but that the demurrer of the re-
lator to the return of the Laurens Cot
ton mills be not sustained, with leave
to the relator to apply for a trial of the
issue of the facts between himself and
the Laurens Cotton mills in one of the
methods required by law. In the
meantime, the issuance of the writ OF