The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-06-22

L u
the property" This is simply the rule
so REPEATEDLY approved by the Supreme
Court of the United States, as shown
above, and was evidently suggested to
| the Legislature by the great disparity
between the assessed value of railroad
property and it's real value as shown by
the market value OF the stocks and Sc
cUrities based thereon.
1t is suggested in behalf of defendants
that the Legislature by the provisions
of section As intended that the franchise
| or intangible property should not be
taxed until 1908. That would be very
Icing and circuitous way of saying what
might have been said in a few plain
and explicit words. AS the tax had al
ready been imposed by existing law,
such an Interpretation would be in legal
effect an exemption from taxation for
the years 1901 and 1902 Can we suppose
that the Legislature intended to create
q practical exemption from taxation of
valuable property under the guise of a
mere change in the method of its assess
ment? We think not.
1t is a we'll settled rule of interpre-
tation here and elsewhere that there
cen be no exemption unless the deliber-
ate purpose of the State to Great such
exemption is declared in words too plain
and explicit to require construction. The
mere existence of doubt is it's legal
determination in behalf of the State.
This question is fully discussed in
Railroad VS.. Allsbrook, 10 n. c., 1877
which expresses the settled rule of this
court. In affirming that case on writ of
error, the Supreme Court of the United
States says GAG U. S., 279, 30D: 1--WE
concur with the State court in the con-
illusions reached, as sustained by rea
son and authority" A few quotations
from the numerous decisions of that
court, running through a long series of
years, show how firmly the rule is estab-
lished.
In Railroad VS.. Guffey, 12O U. s., $780,
SIS, the court says: For it is the settled
doctrine of this court that an immunity
from taxation by the State will not be
recognized unless granted in terms too
plain 70 be mistaken"
In Wilmington and Weldon r. r. Co.
VS.. Allsbrook, LAG u. S.. 294, Chief Jus
tice Fuller, speaking for the court, says:
1.-THE taxing power is essential to the
existence of government, and cannot be
held to have been relinquished in any
instance unless the deliberate purpose
of the State to that effect clearly APP
pears. The surrender of a power so
vital cannot lie left to inference or con-
ceded 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
Iower'
Again it is urged that the faith OF the
State is pledged to the maintenance of
the compromise entered into by the
Governor and 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 it
alleged that any compromise is shown
by the records of the Federal Court. The
message thus alludes to the transaction:
1.-The railroads insisted upon 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
I'VE therefore declined to assent to
either year, but were 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 consdera-
ton those representing the railroad COM
panies 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
construction would destroy all idea OF
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 it 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
ly, was uduy llillco IiC dlllouht ih'Oif-
ed The essential nature of a compro-
mise supposes mutual concessions, and
cannot be applied to any inconceivable
transaction wherein one party is suppos-
ed to bind himself to give up sum
largely in excess of that in litigation
simply to settle law suit. We do not
think that the message of the Governor,
even if it could affect our interpreted
ton of the Statute, can upon its race
justly require any such construction.
The above opinion, written more than
month ago under different circum-
stances and for a different purpose, is
now filed as my dissenting opinion en-
bodying the views l still entertain as to
the law This I say in justice to myself,
as my opinion, professedly dissenting
from the opinion of the court, does not
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, or
even to materially change it without en-
dangering it's logical connection. In spe-
officially dissenting from the opinion of
the court, l scarcely know where to be-