The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-06-30
Roads in Court Fight Say
 Tax Is Unconstitutional

is violativs of section 45 of the constf-
 tuticn of 1901.
 The plaintiff argues that all of the constitutional powers to tax a corpora ton are exhausted in the first mem tioned sections. and after they have been exhausted the law now in con- alteration attempts to impose this ad- diti0nal franchise tax and is an addi- tional property tax in excess of the rate fixed in sections 2i4 and 215.
 Az to Section 10 of Article of the
 Constitution of the United States. the
 plaintiff argues that the several roads purchased by the Louisville and Nash
 villa constitute contracts between the
 road and the State and that the Lou
 fsviile and Nashville shall have the
 property and franchises of the road so
 purchased and that such railroad so purchased shall be in ali respects sub-
 ject to the laws of the State as if own ed by e domestic corporation. If own.
 ed by a domestic corporation the prop
 erty so purchased by the L. and N. would not be subject to taxes now un- der consideration.
 violates Fourteenth Amendment. As to the law violating the Four teenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the plaintiff ar gues that Section 1169 of the Code provides that whenever all of the cap- ital stock of an original corporation chartered under the laws of the State Is owned by a railroad corporation chartered by the laws of another state 1t shall be lawful for the domestic cor poration to sell to the corporation own ing it's stock all of Its property, road bed and franchise, and such railroad so purchased shall be in all respects sub feet to the laws of this State as if owned by a domestic corporation. An imposition of the tax denies equal pro- lection of law. and is in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment of the Con- stitution of the United States.
 The plaintiff also ayers that the sec ond section of the act under consid. eration is unconstitutional and void because the Legislature had no author l itv to impose the tax for county pur- poses and also 1t Is not subject clear iy expressed in the title of the act as reouired by Section 45 of the Consti- tuition of Alabama.
 To ali of the complaint of the plaint- if the attorneys for the State in their demurrers give denial
 Mir. Selhefmer for ther State opened
 the argument and spoke until a little
 past 4 o'clock. MT. selheimer sala that the complaints of the road were three fold: First, on the ground of contract with the State to have the right to all privileges of doing business in Ala
 bama possessed by the owners of do-
 mestfc roads from whom the foreign corporation bought the road. Second, the railroads are individual property owners and should have no additional burdens laid upon them other than
 those borne by individual property owners Third, the tax as specified in
 the law is a property tax and not a franchise tax.
 1 Mir. SeIheimer argued that while a
 foreign corporation might purchase a domestic corporations physical prop
 erty. the right was, not given to the
 purchasing company 10 possess the
 rights. of the franchise. The contract
 clause was discussed at some length,
 also, as was the purchase of the dif-
 ferent domestic corporations by the
 Louisville and Nashville Railroad.