The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1902-06-24

court. In affirming that ease on writ -
error, the Supreme Court OF tae United /
states SAYS GIG L. :. 20. a0i). ".
concur "ith the State court Ill the cons
ciGsions reached. as sustained by rea-
son and authority. 4 few quotations
from the numerous decisions 81 tina,
court. running through \ long series o.
years. show how firmly the rule il e,tab
lished.
In Railroad vs.. Gunev. 20 I. s. go
80. the court says: For il is the settled
coctrine OF this court that an immunity
from taxation By the State viii not ~
recognized unless granted in terms too
plain "a be mistaken"
In Wilmington anG Weldon Z r. Co.
vs.. AllsbrCok, l46 L. s, 294. Chief Jus
Ice Fuller. speaking Tor the coart. SAYS
The taxing power is essential to tht
s~A'stence Of government. and cannot BE-
held to have been reliHquishei in any
Instance unless the deliberate purpose
Of the State to that effect dearly ap-
Pears. The surrender OF a power so
vital canno be left 10 inference or con-
coded in the presence of doubt. and when
the language used admits Of reasonable
contention. the conclusion is inevitable
in favor OF the reservation OF the
lower"
Again it IS urged that the faith o: the
State is pledged TO the maintenance OF
the compromise entered into by the
Governor AMI the General Assembly with
the railroad companies. What We're the
terms Of such compromise. If there was
any compromise? The act makes no
allusion TO any compromise, nor is il
alleged that any compromise is shown
by the records of the Federal Court. The
message thus alludes to the transaction:
The railroads insisted upon a reduction
of the assessment made in 1899. but
we're willing to pay on the assessment Of
1900, provided their assessable property
should not again be assessed until there
was another assessment of other prop
Crty in the State
we therefore declined to assent to
any reduction in the assessment for
either year, but We're willing that the
property of the railroads subject TO as
sessmcnt should only be assessed as
often as other property in the State is
or shall be assessed. Upon cOnSidera-
tion those representing the railroad com
ranies decided to accept our view of
the matter and withdraw their suit,
etc."
Giving to these words their fullest
legitimate meaning there is no alluslon
TO any exemption from taxation such as
would result from the construction We
are asked by the defendants to
place upon this act. In fact such q
construction would destroy all idea OF a
compromise. 1t appears from the mes
sage that the entire amount involved IN
the litigation in the Federal Court was
an increased assessment OF a little over
nine millions Of dollars; while 1t is evil
dent from the report of the Corporation
Commission. compared with the reports
Of current market values, that the value
of the intangible property of the three
railroad corporations which were parties
to said litigation, after deducting the
assessed value of their tangible proper.
ty, was many times the amount involv-
ed. The essential nature of a compro-
mise supposes mutual concessions, anc
cannot be applied to any inconceivable
transaction wherein one party is suppos-
ed to bind himself to give UP a sun
largely in excess of that in litigation
simply to settle q law suit. We do not
think that the message of the Governor
even if it could affect u interpreta-
ton of the Statute, can upon its face
Justly require any such constructions.
The above opinion, written more thar
a month ago under different clrcum-
stances and for a different purpose IS
now filed as my dissenting opinion en-
bodying the views / still entertain as tc
the law. This l say in justice to myself
as my opinion, professedly dissentlns
from the opinion of the court. does moi
allude thereto. AS | have just received
the opinion of the court, it is Impossible
for me in the few remaining hours OF
the session to reWrite my opinion, OF
ever to materially change it without en-
dangering its logical connection. In spe-
officially dissenting from the opinion OF
the court. | scarcely know where to be-
gin, as | dissent from it in toto. both II
its conclusion and the reasoning by
which it is reached. There is one part
containing the dominating principle o.
the opinion, which l cannot ignore. /
is the following: IF it should be OBJ
jected to this opinion that to be con-
sistent it embraces implicitly the view
that there is no statute which fixes the
assessment of the real and persona
property of the railroad companies II
this State upon which taxes can be
evied and collected, until the assess
ment provided for in June. 1913, by the
Act Of 1901, Chapter Z, Section II, II
would have to be admitted that lnat Is
a fact" This is simply saying IN sub
stance that no species of railroad prop
erty, real or personal, tangible or IN
tangible. can be assessed for taxes until
June. 1908. In this view | could never
concur, as it would drive me to one o.
two inevitable conclusions either tina
the Legislature intended to grant to the
railroads a total exemption from al
taxation for the years 1901 and 1902, OF
that the Act is so utterly insenSible as
to be incapable of any reasonable inter
pretation. If this be the opinion of the
court, I must again enter my respectful
but most earnest dissent.
If, however, the able opinion of the
Chief Justice, which I understand re
ceives the concurrence Of Justice Cook
holds, as it seems to me it does hold
that the railroads are liable for the years