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

we must decide the case as it is brought
before US, and, as the questions have
been clearly presented, we find no sub
stantial difficulty in their d~etermina-
ton.
There seems to be no question as to
the power of the Legislature to impose
the taxes in form and substance as con
templatcd in section 90 of the Machinery
Act of 1901. Section 3 of Article V, of
the Constitution of this State, is as fol-
lows: Laws shall be passed taxing. by
a uniform rule, all monies, credits, in
vestnents in bonds, stocks, joint stock
companies or otherwise; and also. also,
al real and personal property. accord
ing to It's true value in money. The
General Assembly may also tax trades,
professions. franchises and incomes pro-
Vided that no income shall be taxed
when the property from which the in
come is derived is taxed" The power
to tax franchises. including the intangible
property of q corporation, seems to be
OPTIONAL; but it is fully given. and does
not seem to be in conflict with the Fed
eral Constitution. This principle is ably
and deliberately discussed in State Rail-
read Tax Cases, 90 L. s., SIS. The court
therein says on page COZ: 1T is obvious
J 1loNeNtI, ludL Willie Il ld1T assessment
! under these two descriptions OF property
will include all the visible and tangible
:, property of the corporation, it may or
may not include all it's wealth. There
may be other property of a class not
| visible or tangible which ought to respond
to taxation, and which the State has a
right TO subject to taxation.' Again
the court says on page COS: ct is there
fore obvious that, when you have ascer-
tanned the current cash value of the
whole funded debt, and the current cash
value of the entire number of shares,
you have, by the action of those who
above all others car best estimate it,
ascertained the true value of the road, all
it's property, it's capital stock, and its
franchises; for these are represented by
the value of it's bonded debt and of the
shares Of it's capital stock" Later cases
are to the same, effect, generally citing
this case. Kentucky r. K. Tax Cases,
lis Z. c.. 321, 339; w. L. Tel. Co. VS..
Mass, 125 U. S. $50; ms. Co. VS.. N. Y.
1874 U. c., 594; Car Co. VS.. Penn, al U.
s. IS: Mass. VS.. Tel. Co, al Z. s., 40;
Col. So. Ry. VS.. Wright. 81 Z. S., 40;
Ry. Co. VS.. Backus, 1874 [. S., 421; p. Co.
VS.. Cal. 1e2 L. S, 81; ?. r. Co. vs.. Cal.
162 U. s, 1867. These cases sustain, not
only the fairness and legality Of the
method of assessment prescribed by our
statute and approved in State Railroad
Tax Cases, supra, but also the further
principle that Quoting head-note in Ry.
VS.. Backus) when a railroad runs into
or through two or more States, its value
for taxation purposes, in each, is fairly
estimated by taxing that part of the
value OF the entire road which is meas
ured by TIE proportion of the length OF
tho nartiou1ar mart in that State TO thdt
'of the whole road"
The capacity of the plaintiff to. sue
and the power of the Legislature TO I'M
pose the tax having been determined
i remains for us to ascertain the inten-
ton of the Legislature as expressed IL
the act. That the Legislature intended
TO assess and collect at same time the
taxes referred to in section % does not
admit of question. To that extent the
act is clear and explicit, relther re-
curing ror permitting Interpretation
The ONLY point susceptible OF doubt Is
| as to the time when Such assessment
, should be made. This point we mus
confess gave us some trouble. Ana ye'
if we give effect to all parts or the acts
, we can come but to one conclusion. IL
seems clear to us that the General AS
/, sembly intended sections AZ ana oo OF
!, the act IN question to go INTO lnnheuiatt
t operation. II otherwise, Why should lhes
{ have beer put into the act at all! VIZ
must take judicial notice that unuer oui
, constitution and laws another Leglsla'
J ture will be elected and IN session De
fore the month of June, 1908. It IS com
: mon knowledge. appearing from GU
: public statutes and legislative Journals
, that each legislature passes its owl
: revenue and machinery acts, when art
intended to be. and usually are, com
s plete in themselves. 1t can scarcely oe
r presumed that the Legislature OF l9o-
@ deliberately did so vain a thing as either
to attempt to bind that or 1918 py anu
| c~ipatorv legislation on the one hand or
Y or the other, to pass an act Which II di'
not intend to be operative. moreover
t it is obvious that the assessment re-
orired by section so is to be oaseu upoi
d | the statements prescribed III - =
r and yet those statements are by the very