Yszoo & m. V.·B. co. rv. BQARD OF LEVEE cou’ns. 27
tion must have been·a valid act under the constitution and laws of the
state, as this provision was not intended to protect illegal or void contracts.
, .That the legislature may pass laws exempting property from taxation
for a limited time was decided by the supreme court of this state in the
case of Mississippi Mis v. Cook, 56 Miss. 40; and by all the judges, that
the thirteenth and twentieth sections of the twelfth article of the consti-
tution of this state leaves it discretionary with the legislature to impose
taxation on property belonging to corporations for pecuniary profits, or
V not. ‘ A majority of the court held that the exemption given by one leg-
islature might be repealed by another, and the property subject to taxa-
tion at the will of the legislature. Judge Ciurnnns, in a dissenting opin-
ion, held otherwise, and that the legislature might grant an exemption
from taxation, which formeda contract irrepealable by the legislature,
which all the judges agreed might be done but for the thirteenth and
twentieth sections of article 12 of the constitution of the state. 4 The
corporation in the case of Mississippi Mills v. Cook was a manufactur-
ing corporation, in which the public had no SP¢>Qial»interest, andwas
. creattsdsolely for the pecuniary profit of stockholders of the corpora-
tion. I am of opinion that a fair construction of these two sections
ofthe constitution makes their provisions applicable to corporations _
in which the public has no special interest, such as banks, manufact-
uring companies, and other corporations, created solely for the pront
of its stockholders or owners, and not to those of a quasi public charac-
ter, necessary as arteries of commerce and the public convenience, the
development of the resources of the state, and the enhancement of the
value of the property of others, and consequently a proportionate relief
from the burden of taxation of all the tax-payers of this state. Railroads
are common carriers, and declared to be public highways, are made post
roads, and owe various duties to the public not imposed on other corpo-
rations. For this conclusion, I must admit, I have no adjudicated au-
thorityupon which to rely, and only give it as my own conclusion, and
as a reason for not feeling bound by the decision of the majority of the
court in the case of Mississippi Mills v. Cook; otherwise I would feel bound
by that construction given the constitution of the state. If I am correct
in making this distinction between the corporations embraced in these
sections of the constitution and those of a quasi public character, then,
from the preamble and the provisions of the act incorporating the com-
plainant corporation, there is no difficulty in determining that it belongs
to the quasipublic class; there is no difficulty in determining the under-
standing and purpose of the incorporators on the one side and the legis-
lature, representing the sovereignty of the state, on the other. There
was a large scope of country of the richest lands in the state that lay in-
accessible to the markets and the balance of the world, and, with few ex-
ceptions, left as an unoccupied wilderness. To give to the owners of
these lands an outlet to the world, and a market for the immense crops
of cotton and other products of these rich lands, and for the immense
forests of timber growing on them and necessary to be taken off the land
to reduce_ it to cultivation, and to enhance the value of the lands,. to in-