Page:St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Berry (41 Ark. 509).pdf/2

510 J. M. Moore and Dodge & Johnson, for Appellants.

C. B. Moore, Attorney-General, and U. M. and G. B. Rose, for Appellees.

The exemption clause of the act incorporating the Cairo & Fulton R. R. Co., is to receive a strict construction. The rule governing in such cases is laid down very explicitly in Bailey v. McGuire, 22 Wall., 226. It is never for the interest of the State to surrender the power of taxation, and an intention to do so will not be imputed to it unless the language employed leaves no alternative. Ib.

Exemptions from taxation are never presumed. The presumptions are always the other way. Railway Co. v. Loftin, 94 U.S.98 U.S. [sic], 594.

The reference in the charter to that of the Mississippi Valley R.R. Co., does not help the plaintiff. The rule as to the construction of what is called a "reference statute" is laid down in Bing v. Justices of Surrey, 2 Tenn. R., 510.

In R.R. Co. v. Loftin, 30 Ark., 711, the reference clause is mentioned, but the court decided the case exclusively on the provisions of the charter of the Cairo & Fulton R.R. Co. The Supreme Court of the U.S. said, "The twenty-fifth section of the Mississippi Valley charter, even if it was incorporated with that of the Cairo & Fulton Co., of which there may be doubt, does not materially change the effect of the eleventh section"—and they did not find it needful to pass on this question except as above. Railway Co. v. Loftin, 94 U.S.98 U.S. [sic], 563.

We assert that there is nothing in the charter of the Cairo & Fulton R.R. Co. authorizing it to consolidate with any other road. The word "consolidate" is not found in the charter. It is avoided with elaborate care.

To have allowed a consolidation would have defeated, forever, the enforcement of taxation as provided by the