Page:Memphis & Little Rock Railway Co. v. Berry.pdf/7

 question, he would hold that this exercise of State sovereignty should not be bartered away.

And that eminent jurist, C. J. R, in 27 Vt., 143, after conceding the doctrine to be established as we have stated, says: "But it seems to me there is some ground to question the right of the legislature to extinguish by one act this essential right of sovereignty. I would not be surprised to find it brought into general doubt."

The exercise of the power is not favored by the courts. Sentiments similar to those quoted run through many of the decisions of the highest courts. And it is not impossible that the prophetic announcement made by the learned counsel for appellant in their very able brief, running in the same groove with J R suggestions, may yet be fulfilled. And it may prove true, as asserted, "that, except when directly authorized so to do by the constitution, no legislature ever did have power to grant an exemption from taxation, is a proposition to which every court in the union will come within twenty years."

At present, however, the precedents are the other way.

The claim of the appellant is that the exemption from taxation in section 28 of the act of the incorporation of the original company was by the terms of section 9 of that act, made assignable, and by virtue of a subsequent mortgage and sale thereunder passed to and became vested in appellant company. The two sections are as follows:

"Section 9. The said company may at any time increase its capital to a sum sufficient to complete the said road, and stock it with anything necessary to give it full operation and effect, either by opening books for new stock, or by selling such new stock, or by borrowing money on the credit of the company, and on the mortgage of its and works."

Section 28. The capital stock of said company shall be exempt from taxation until the road pays a dividend of six