tion, ever contemplated that it would be claimed to cover
property and shares owned by the Company, amounting, in
1870, to perhaps more than fifty millions of dollars, and in-
creasing in amount each year.

But the Company claims that it does. That any property
acquired by it, whether in rolling stock of the road, or in
any of the most valuable town lots it might elect to purchase
even as an investment only, and not for the necessary use of
the Company, in 'the most desirable residence or business
locations in Baltimore is exempt from taxation; and it is
actually owning and running Steamers, costing millions of
dollars, to different parts of Europe, and the South, free of
taxation to the State or the City of Baltimore. And their
right to do all this under existing laws is held by the Court
of Appeals in 6th Gill, " Mayor and City Council of Balti-
more vs. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company."

The bill which I now return without my approval, would
add millions of dollars to the capital shares and wealth of
the Company, paying no tribute to the State, or the counties
through which it runs, unless a provision is inserted that
they shall not be exempt from taxation under the Act of
826, chapter 123. The fundamental principle of our State
government as established by Article 13, of our old Bill
Rights, and by Articles 15 and 41 of our present, is in
direct opposition to such .discrimination, and "contravenes the
first principles of the compact", if it is held to be a contract
between the State and the Company.

With what justice can the Agricultural, the Mechanical
and other producing interests be more grievously taxed for
the support of the government, and the protection of this very
property of this Company, its shares and its bonds held by
wealthy capitalists exempt from all taxation? And particularly
just at this time when the Company has refused to pay to the
State the only tax it has ever been required to pay, which it
has been collecting professedly for the State, but without
paying over for the last twenty-cue months, and which it still
continues to collect and refuses to pay ?

But it is not in this alone that the "legislation" conferr-
ed by the bill now returned is "partial." It should be
borne in mind that in 1865, when the Act now sought to be
amended, was passed by the General Assembly, and conferr-
ing these privileges, exempt from taxation, there was another
Company of wealthy capitalists seeking a charter to build
this road not only from "the boundary of the District of
Columbia to a point on the Baltimore and Ohio Road in
Frederick county," but to extend it on ''through Frederick
and Washington counties to Hagerstown," with all their fran-
chises subject to taxation.

This charter was granted in 1865, chapter 140, and under
33