viii REPORT OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY.

In 1827 a charter was granted to the Baltimore and Susque
hanna Railroad Company by chapter 72 of the Act of 1827, one
of the chief provisions being, immunity from taxation. In 1854,
by chapter 250 of the act of the same year, the stockholders of
the Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad Company were
' authorized to consolidate with the York and Maryland Line
Railroad Company, the York and Cumberland Railroad Com-
pany and the Susquehanna Company, forming one corporation
by the name of the Northern Central Railway Company, in
which consolidation was transferred among other things to the
new company, the property, rights, privileges and immunities
belonging to the several old companies. This exemption from
taxation under the Act of 1854 was enjoyed by the said com-
pany until the year 1866, when the General Assembly passed
a general assessment law, chapter 157, providing of course for
the assessment of all property, in which, however, was a pro
vision repealing in general terms all laws exempting property
from taxation. A more specific act, however, was passed in
1870, ch. 362, repealing "every provision contained in the char-
ter or supplements thereto, of every railroad company incor-
porated by the laws of this State or contained in any law here-
tofore passed by the Legislature of the State whereby the stock
or property, real or personal, of any railroad company * * *
is exempted from taxation." Two years later, the Legislature,
by chapter 234 of the Act of 1872, imposed its first gross receipt
tax upon steam railroads, viz: one-half of one per centum
annually.

The records of this office show that under this statute, the tax
of one-half of one per centum on the gross receipts of said com-
pany was levied from April 1 to December 31, 1872, amounting
to $3,082.37 1/2, and for each year thereafter up to and including
the year 1879, the total tax for the eight years aggregating
$29,762.54. This tax the said Railway Company refused to pay,
and upon suit being brought by the State, a judgment was
recovered in favor of the company, from which judgment an
appeal was taken by the State to the Court of Appeals, with
the result of a reversal of the judgment of the lower court by
said Appellate Court, thus holding the company liable for said
tax.