Western union. (City of Hannibal, Mo.) 1850-1851, 1851-05-01
From the ST. Louis lntellgcuc
The Result Of the Tax Case.

From the St Louis lnielligcuccr.
The Result Of the Tax Case.
We published yesterday the decisions OF Jud
yes Birch and Ky land on the Tax Law. ANA All |
uounced to our readers that the License - stem,
ds provided under the acts oi 1919 anL 1919,
had been decided to be unconstitutional and
,od and we congratulated the people, and the
merchants especially Oh this result. We lear
We have less cause for congraulaion than We
had supposed and that the merchants are To be
still iurIher subjected to gross injustice in the
matter Of taxation. AT the time Ui going to
press yesterday, we had not read all OF Judge
Birch's opinion; 1ut had heard read all OF II ex-
cept the concluding part, as it was delivered
from the Bench. From tina. portion Of 1t which
we heard and from the information OF others
who heard the whole Of 1t, we supposed tina, the
Judge had gone the full length Of declaring The
acts OF lS49 and 1919 10 be repugnant to the
Constitution Of hi, State. But on u careful ex-
animation Of the opinion itself, and from con
versatlon with Judge Birch, we fud we were
III error. AS we now uudeI stand Judge Blrch's
opinion, he decides tina. the Legislature may tax
and license merchants, provided tie tax impo-
sed on the license does not exceed .he same
rate imposed for the time being on real estate
AMI other property.
The act OF lS49 imposed tax Oh the license
at the rate of 20 cents Oh every hundred dollars
worth Of Merchandise received for sale; and AZ
this is the same rate imposed upon real estate.
Judge Birch decides that the tax on the license
is no, UNEQUAL and therefore does not conflict
with that provision OF the constitution which dc
clar' that all property subject TO taxation, shall
10 taxed III proportions to lis value. But as the
act OF 1919 Imposed all additional advaorem
tax Oh the merchandise, equal to the tax asses
.,aI, "A II, hall hat a, 4
Ualorcm tax is void Tor the reason that If 1t were
valid, it would suNjrct the same property twice
10 the same amount Of tax; to wu; rnce IA the
c shape Of license tax. and once III the shape 1T
= an al raioICm lax, which the Judge thinks WON'T,
d destroy that equality taxation Joined by the
/. constitution. The sum ind substance Of has de
T. cs'on therefore is, that the lO'h section Of the
act Of 1913, for licensing and taxing merchants,
r (Which section imposes All ad raiorem tax un the
6 merchandise IN broken packHge,) Is uucons,i-
iutiural and ,uii. But that all the balance VI
the act i. valid, as we'll AS the act Of 1919 tx
, cept SO much vi the last named act is re- enact,
. OF continues il force, the 10Th section OF the ACT
= Of 1913, before referred 10. lie therefore re
c cognlzes valid the right Of the Legislature /,
) tax and license merchants, provided only that III,
tax on TIE license shall 10, exceed the same rate
= imposed Oh real estate aud other property lor
'hc ''hit btiHH' Aus, We 'ciitNt, ~ IHN
G siatcmeh! ,i the col r'usicn TO which Judg,
h Birch has arrived; aud we sncerely regret tina,
he leaves the merchants III II yer, lutte better
predcam"nt thun they have heretofore been
In our opinion, the great constitutional question
. of the power Of the Legislature TO discrlmil,a,,
betw cen domestic aud foreign products in til,
imtus i'iun ol taxes. has hot been toucl ed At al
=, III Judge l'iroh's opinion. This was precisely
the question on which the counsel for the mer
:, chants insisted that the validity or invally q
/, the law depended. This question Judge Blrcl
;, h LOT decided and we especially regret that h,
;, has not, inasmuch a. Judges MAJ ton and Ry
. land have taken precisely opposit grounds u D.
:. ON t.-Judge Rylaud decides explicitly an,
;, broadly, that :he act Of 1915 is null and void
~ because IT compels the dealer in foreign good
>, TO pay heavy tax upon hi, license, whilst tn
dealer III domestic goods pays no tax. This h,
thinks is in conflict with tie St,ta cons,itu,ion
which virtually enjoins equality in tlxatun.
The ad ratorcm tax imposed by the 10Th sec
+ ton Of the Gct Of lSl5, he considers void for th
sane reason to wit, that i! is applicable only t.
J. foreign goods and is therefore not uniform. Ill
. also maintains that they are void under Ii,
;, Constitution of the United States, being virtual
4" ly ajax upon imports which the State canno
:! impose.
3 The opinion of Judge Ry land meets ard fall,
l. drr.des the questions at Issue. The opinion o
'. Judge Napton is also explicit and full TO til,
T. point; ana assumes jus. the opposite ground It
e that occupied by Judge Ryland. We rcgre,
}. therefore that Judge Birch has not discussed an,
o decided the question, which in our judgement
!. WAS the Chief question involved, to-wu; whelh
4 cr the exemption u. dealers in domestic product
-, from all taxation, willis. those Tho deal in fore
IGN product, are heavily tsXed, does not rende
: the act II nullty both under the constitution .
l. this State aud of the United States This, we
supposed was the great question tobe decided
But 1t i. now le!t in as much doubt as il was be
- fore, enc OF the Judge. affirming the power
J. whilst another denies it; aud the third Judg
. has expressed 10 opinion on that pvn:, but la
decided one isosted provision OF the ACT of 1915
II 10 be vcil for different reason, iowit, brc4u.
d fit we're enforced, it would impose doub.
d HN vn the sane merchandise.
!. Ii will he perceived, therefore, that very lit
e le progress, has been made towards final de
/ cision Of the important question penlins Ia
n erchalts aud the State.
la tho meantime it becomes important for th
u mer chants to decide, what course they viii pur
quo IN the presen, state Of aiiairs judges Mar
ton and Birch decide the acts OF 1915 and ISL
% DO Y Aid, 50 far as it relates To- the tax ON !
e0.e.; the Iprme rho ldir g them to he valid
u. their provisions, whilst Mc latter lhMk. ..