\
26 ~   rmnmnan amromma. l . ,
for the years prior-to 1884, $80 per mile; for 1884, $100 per mile, and for 1886
and 1887; $125 per mile." aq .
The ll bill further avers that the tax collectors within the levee district
/ have proceeded to assess the taxes on complainant’s railroad, in pursu-
ance to the provisions of said act, for the years 1885, 1886, and 1887,
and will enforce payment thereof unless restrained by this court. The
_ bill avers that by the provisions of section 8 of the act of 1882 said rail-
road and all theproperty connected with it is exempt from this taxation,
and will be for 20 years from the completion of said road to the Mississippi
river, not, however, to exceed 25 years from the passage of said act.
p The defendants inte1·pose their demurrer to the allegations and prayer
of the bill, and assign as causes of demurrer the following: (1) There is
no ground alleged giving this court jurisdiction of the matters charged.
(2) This court has no jurisdiction of the matters charged. (3) There is
no equity on the face of the bill. (4) Complainauts charter, as set
`forth in the bill, does not exempt from levee taxes, and, if it did, the
contingency upon which the exemption is based has not occurred; that
is, the completion of the railroad to the Mississippi river. (5) That if j
saidrcharter on its face does exempt from levee taxes, it could not con-
. tract away the powers of subsequent legislatures to impose such taxes,
which they have done, as shown by the bill. Such power would be in
, coniiict with sections 13 and 20 of article 12 of the constitution of the
State of Mississippi} (6) That said sections of the constitution of this
fstate were construed by the supreme court of the state before the com-
plainant’s charter_was granted and accepted, and became a part of it.
(7) That no question arises in this case upon the inviolability of con-
tracts under the constitution of the United States, which has reference to
valid contracts, not void contracts. (8) That the tax imposed is a local
tax, made under the police power of the legislature. , “
The first question presented by the demurrer is as to the jurisdiction
of this court to maintain this cause, both parties being citizens of 'the
. state, as shown by the bill. The solution of this question depends
upon whether or not the exemption from taxation provided in the char-
_ter is a contract, within the meaning of the tenth section, article 1, of
the constitution of the United States, which prohibits any state from
passing any law impairing the obligations of contracts. If it is, then it is
clearthat theact of February 28, 1887, imposing the tax to raise money
for the purpose of building and maintaining levees, is repugnant to this
provision of the constitution of the United States; and that, if the exemp-
tion claimed by the bill is and was in force when the taxes sought to be ·
enjoined were assessed and threatened to be enforced, such proceeding is
in contravention of this clause of section 10 of article 1 of the constitu-
tion of the United States. The act of the legislature granting the exemp-
- *Which sections are as follows: ( *
“Sec. 18. The property of all corporations for pecuniary profits shall be subject t0tax·
atiou, the same as that of individuals. ’!~ » _.
“Sec. 20. Taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout the state. All property
shall be taxed in proportion to its value, to be ascertained as directed by law. "