The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-08-04

fhtilleu on or near the last days of the
| session. In the hurry and confusion of
the closing hours, if the intention. which
| may be gathered from the several acts
and the surroundings and circumstances
| was not well expressed, the obvious err
| ror may be corrected by the courts in
their Interpretation of the law.
Where it is manifest upon the face
OF an act that an error has been made
III the use of words the court may cor
rect the error and read the statute as
corrected in order to give effect to the
obvious intention of the Legislature.
The power to make such correction IS
well established, but it is exercised only
where the error is so manifest as to
leave no doubt in the judicial mind as
to the actual intent of the Legislature.
% A. & L. Enc Law, page 421.
Lancashire VS.. Fry, rs IA. st. o93,
I.udsley VS.. Williams, 20 n. j. Eq. 93.
II. THE STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA HAS THE POWER TO
TAN ROLLING STOCK OWNED
BY A FOREIGN CORPORATION
AND USED ON A RAILROAD IN
THE STATE, OWNED, LEASED
OR OPERATED BY IT, NOR Is IT
NECESSARY THAT THE SAM "
CARS SHOULD REMAIN IN THE
STATE ALL THE TIME, PROElD-
ED AN EQUIVALENT NUMBER
ARE OPERATED CONTINUOUSLY
IN THE STATE.
The case of Balm VS.. II. & d. X. X.
Co, 100 n c. 1868, is cited in opposition
to our proposition, and deserves consld-
GRAFTON. This case was decided at the
February term, 1890. 1t holds, that
the rolling stock of a nonresident rail
road corporation, passing through the
State for purposes of Interstate COM
merce. is not liable to taxation in this
State.
1t appeared in this case that ION June
1. 1885, there was in use on the North
Carolina Railroad leased by the Rich
mond and Danville Railroad in North
Carolina, rolling stock passing through
the State TO the value of $173,0OO.
Such rolling stock was owned by the
r. & ID. r. II. Co, and the trains in
which said rolling stock was used were
made up outside of North Carolina ana
went on through to the State of South
Carolina" 1t did not appear that TINS
quantity of rolling stock was thus oper-
ated in North Carolina continuously.
The court said: 1T is settled that
State cannot tax commerce, trace
travel, transportation or the privilege
TO carry on and conduct the same, or
the vehicles, means and appliances EN-
poycd and used in connection thefeWlth,
coming into that State from another
temporarily, however frequently and
returning to such other State" citing
HAYES VS.. Steamship Co., IL Howard,
SOC: Morgan vs.. Parham, 16 Wall Al;
Ferry Co. VS.. Pennsylvania, ia Z. ,.
Rep. 1876 and cases cited; Plckard VS..
Pullman Co. III u. $. Rep. "a, Leloup
VS. Port of Mobile, 127 u. 5. Rep. 649.
Strange to say, not one of these cases
support the proposition.
The court in Bain's case say the
statute was intended to tax the prop
erty of corporations, foreign and do
nestle, whose property had no situs IN
this State. That the mere iact that
property Of the defendant Of the yalue
mentioned was continuously within the
State did not give it situs here, 1t was
continuously changing, and III transltu
in the course of Interstate commerce.
The doctrine that taxation CT rofAhS
stock is an interference with interstate
commerce. was exploded by the Supreme
Court of the United States in the case
of Pullman Co. V. PENNSYLVANIA, l4l u.
s.. Is. decided year after the BAN
ease. If the Pullman case had been de-
cided before the Balm case was present
cd. it would have been disposed of very
differently. In this case, the cars OF a
foreign corporation engaged in interstate
nv hn
PENNSYLVANIA, their value being assess
ed by taking as basis of assessment
such proportion of its capital stock as
the number of miles of the railroad over
which its cars were run Within the State
bore to the whole number of miles III this
and other States in which its ears were
run The court held that this did not
mitigate against the Interstate conf
merce clause Of the constitution 1he
court said:
at is equally well settled that there is
nothing in the constitution or laws OF the
United States which prevents a State
from taxing personal property employed
in Interstate or foreign commerce axe
other personal properey Within its Juris-
diction. Delaware Railroad Tax, Is
Wall, BOG, 232; Telegraph Co V. Texas,
100 Z. s., 400. 464: Gloucester Perry
Go. v Pennsylvania, ia u. s., 1876, 211;
Western Union Telegraph Company V.
Attorney General of Massachusetts, 125
t. S., $50, $40; Marye v. Baltimore aud
Ohio Railroad, 1877 r. S., 1T. 124. Lee
loup V. Mobile. 127 L. s.. 610 649."
This case has ben affirmed III X. X.
Company v Backus. 154 L. s., 439, 40:
Gable Go. v. Adams. 100 u. s.. 6SS:
Adams Express Co v Ohio, 100 L. q,
1884, and the same case, 1866 Z. s.. COL,
as well as in many other cases in the
same court See also Pullman Car Go.
V. Twembly, 30 Fed. Rep, los,
Upon all questions arising under the
constitution of the United Stares the
final decision rests with the Supreme
Court of the United States and its ar
mtrament is conclusive. Cooley Cons.
Linz, 1S.
The position of the North Carolina
court in Bain's case that the foreign
corporations cars had no s.tus in North
Carolina for the purpose of taxation is
also met by the Supreme Court in Puff
man Car Co. Y. Pennsylvania, supra.
The court said:
1.-The company has at all times sub
stantially the same number of cars with
in the State and continuously and CON
stantly uses them as Il part of its prop