Page:Memphis & Little Rock Railway Co. v. Berry.pdf/8

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
41 Ark.]
NOVEMBER TERM, 1883.
443

Memphis & Little Rock Railroad Co. (as reorganized) v. Berry et al.


per cent., and the road, with all its fixtures and appurtenances, including workshops, warehouses and vehicles of transportation, shall be exempt from taxation for the period of twenty years from and after the completion of said road."

The word "charter," as used in section nine, must be taken to include at least the franchises of the old corporation in the sense of the right to own and to operate the road, take tolls and carry on its business. That this was made subject to mortgage, and sale is clear. That more than this was designed to be embraced in the transfer does not seem to be very patent.

Nor do we feel it can serve any very useful purpose to discuss that question at length here. In the view we take of it, and in the light of the adjudicated cases, there seems to be a more insurmountable difficulty encountered in finding in the appellant corporation the capacity to acquire and hold such a privilege than in the old company to mortgage and sell. In order to sustain its case the appellant must establish both clearly.

Exemptions from taxation cannot be sustained upon doubtful implications. "The power of taxation is essential to the support and existence of the government, and a grant to the company of exemption therefrom is not to be presumed, and when given to a certain extent is not to be extended by construction.—Pierce on Railroads, 493.

"A corporation is a creature of the law, deriving its existence and faculties from the express grant of the government. It has only the powers so conferred, and all others are presumed to have been withheld. That legislative grants to a corporation, whether of powers or exemptions, are to be strictly construed, so that nothing passes except what is given in clear and explicit terms, is a familiar doctrine, which is applied with more stringency when the powers in question interfere with private rights or abridge