Court Opinion

ID: 9417423
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:14:54.170602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:42.125845
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Field,
with whom concurred The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Miller, and Mr. Justice Bradley, dissenting.
I am obliged to dissent from.the judgment in this case. I agree with the majority of the court in all that is said in the opinion as to the construction of statutes, which are alleged to exempt from the taxing power of the State property within its jurisdiction. Where there is a reasonable doubt as to their construction, whether or not they create the exemption, it should be solved in favor of the State, But here it does not seem to me there can be any such doubt. The statute in ques*671tion declares that the capital stock of the company “ shall be exempt from taxation, and its roads, fixtures, workshops, warehouses, vehicles of transportation, and other appurtenances,-.shall be exempt from taxation, for ten years after the completion of said road within the State.” This exemption was^ designed to aid the road, and was, therefore, much more needed during its construction than when completed. It seems like a perversion of the purpose of the statute to hold that it intended to impede by its burden the progress of the desired work, and relieve it of the burden only when finished. The enterprise is-to be nursed, according to the majority of the court, not in its infancy, but when successfully carried out and needs no support.
I am authorized to say that the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Miller and Mr. Justice Bradley concur with me in this dissent.