Page:St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Berry (41 Ark. 509).pdf/12

520 But if we are in error in our position that the charter did not authorize consolidation after the road was finished, it is to be observed that the charter is silent about the effect of consolidation upon the corporate rights, powers, privileges and immunities granted by it. It does not declare that the new corporation shall be entitled to all the benefits, rights and franchises of the old corporations. Now it is an unbending rule of construction that an exemption from taxation is strictissimi juris. As it is never created in the first instance by implication, so it is never extended by construction. A claim of this sort cannot be supported, unless the statute alleged to confer it is so plain as to leave no room for controversy. "In the construction of a charter, to be in doubt is to be resolved, and every resolution which springs from doubt is against the corporation." Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Peters, 543; Central Railroad Company v. Georgia, 92 U.S., 674; Penn. Railroad Co. v. Canal Com'rs, 21 Pa. St. 9 per BLACK, C.J.

We do not mean to say that the consolidation of these two companies was, at the time it took place, unlawful. The act of July 23, 1868, providing for a general system of railroad incorporation, was then in force, and its forty-third section (Sec. 4969 of Gantt's Digest) authorized consolidation, and declared that the company springing from such union should succeed to all the benefits, rights, franchises, lands and property of every  description belonging to the roads so consolidated. But before the passage of that act the constitution of 1868 had taken effect, and it contained the following provisions:

"The general assembly shall pass no act conferring corporate powers. Corporations made formed under general laws, but all such laws may from time be altered or repealed." Art. V, Sec. 8.

"The general assembly shall not grant to any citizen or