Muscatine weekly journal. [volume] (Muscatine, Iowa) 185?-1890, 1859-04-29

All taxation may be said to involve the taking
OF private property for public Use, and yet all
pro- erty is held subj ec to tho right Of taxation
by the legislature under its authority, either
for general purposes or in local subdivision for
local purpose.
1t has even been he'd that the legislature ,,ay
by general enactment tax any given species Of
property either private or corpora g. to the value
OF the property itself for that the power of taxa
ton Whenever conceded to the legislature over
a Hy given suhje,t implies the power even Of des-
lruction.
Domination We. the toEn of Barret, &C., Is
Vermt, 745.
McCullock We. Maryland, Wheaton, 4l6.
Legitimate taxation, whether under the State
or the municipal authority, is not tie taking of
private property for public use without ompensa
t ion within the meaning of tie constitution. Tie
pro lection afforded the citizens by the government
is usually conceded to be the just compensation
referred to by the constitution for ali pri vate
property he is required to surrender to the public
use in the shape of taxes and it is only where an
undue proportion Of the burden of taxation is
laid upon him. or where the power Of local taxa
tion is made to operate upon those who being out
of the reach Of the local benefit ought not II DO
subject to the local tax, that there can be any
plausible ground for alleging that property taken
for taxes authorized by law is taken without Just
compensation.
The question where the proper line is to be
drawn between the Legitimate exercise of the tax
ing power and the arbitrary appropriation Of tho
property Of N individual u nder the mask of this
power is discussed at length by Marshal, c. j., in
Chancery, vs. Hoover, G. Ben :, tomor $3.50 and
it is held BY the court that where there is no other
constitutional restriction upon The power Of taxa
ton, securing equality, uniformity in tho distr-
button of taxation, either general or local, the
provision of the constitution which prohibits tho
.aking private property for public use without
just compensation, furnishes the only available
against legislation which in its opera
.hn, r
erty of one for the benefit Of many. Concedine
to the court wide range Of discretion as to the
objects of taxation, the kind of pro perty tc be
made liable, and the extent of territory within
which the local tax may operate, it is argued in
the opinion referred to that there must be some
limit to this egslative discretion which, in the
absence of any other criterion is held to assist in
the desert min alton to be made between W hat NAV
reasonably be decreed tax for which q lust
is provided in the objects to which
it is to be devoted, and that which is palpaby not
a tau, but which, under the form of tax, is the
taking of private property for public use without
just compensation.
If there be such fragrant and palpable depart
ure from equity in the burden imposed, If it be
imposed for the benefit of others, or for purposes
in which those Directing have no interest, ana are
therefore not bound to contribute it is 40 matter
in what form the power is Observation-Disclosures in
the neqnal levy of the tax, or in the regulations
of the boundaries Of the local government, VIII oh
results in suhjecting the party uni Justly to local
ia <es. 1t must be regarded as coming within tho
prohibition of the csnst tuition designed to protec-
private rights against aggression, however made It
ana whether unaer the color of recognized power
or not.
1t is urged by the plaintiff, that his farm, which
is sought to be brought within the jurisdiction of
the city, is agricu al land that il is one mile
from tie old boundary of the city, and the same
distance from any lands laid out in city lots, or
used or needed for city purposes, that he can de-
rive no benefit from the extension of the munich
pal government over him and his property, andth
the act subj Getting him to taxation at the will of
the city council and for its benefit, is an appro-
ptiaton Of his private property for tn of the
city, without any compensation or benefit sccruirg
to him in return. We have no doubt, as is held
In Oh eaney VS.. Hoover, Supra, that if the owner
OF land adjoining city or town should Law the
same off into lots, and invite purchasers and Set
tiers to occupy it with welings or Othe wise, he
could not object to law extending the authority
Of local government over him and his lands 60
laid out and occupied-but If the case is that of
vacant land, or a cultivated fam occupied BY the
owner for agricultural purposes, and not required
tor either streets, or houses, other purposes Of
town, and solely for the purpose Of increasing
its revenue, it is brought within the taxing power
by an enlargement of the city limits. Such an
act though On its face provides only for such ex-
tension Of the city limits, is in reality nothing
moro than authority to the city to tax the land
10 Certain distance GU side of its limits and is in
effect the taking of private property without
compensation. The force and effect an obvious
interest of the act is to subject su h outside lands to
tax without the pretext of ext ending thu protec-
ion Of the city oVer them, and when the power of
he Legislature over LOCAL regulations and govern
nent furnishes no legitimate has for the act.
In Wells VS.. the city of Weston, p Missouri,
$50, the supreme court Of Missouri willis con.
# taxation, su0JeSu u,ry Cd -eo1rvtuursnal re-
stretions, that call property subject to taxation
shall be taxed IN proportion 10 its value,' and
;oncedng also the right to delegate to subordinate
agencies, SUCH as municipal corporations, the
power of taxation have dsnied it the power to tax
arbitrarily the p-opeaty of enc citizen and give
t to another, and on this ground have held that
he legislature cannot authorize municipal or
ooration to tax, for its own local purposes, land
ying beyond the corporation limits.
And SO it is held by the court Of appeals of
Kentucky, in uniformity with the principles laid
iosn-Cbeaney VS.. Hoover, Supra-that although
he legislature has power to extend the limits
If cities and towns, and include adjacent agrica!-
ural lands without the consent of the owners, yet
he corporation authorities cannot tax such prop
srty as town property, and subjee it to the city
without the consent Of the owners until
It shall be laid off into lots and used town prop
,rty. The decision is made distinctly on tie
ground that the act of the legislature was an in
7asion of private property, contrary to the prnci
Die of our constitutional law under color of the
ate, Is, Ben. Monroe, 491.
In the framework and OF Grafton Of our govern
nent, (says Mr.. Sedgewick) the rotestion Of YES.
ed rights is the great object to be obtained-the
legislative power being the most formidable, our
ystem chiefly aims to guard the itiz.ns against
he Legislature to p otect him against the power
# ma ority taking the shape Of an unjust law.
The uni ust action of government with US is most
likely to take the shape Of attacks upon rights Of
property. All government indeed resolves itself
INTO life, liberty and property. Life and liberty
n our fortunate condition are, however, little
likely to be iujuriously affected by the body poll
ic. Property is very differently situated. It is
therefore, Of the highest moment if possible to
btain clear iiel of the nature and extent of
he projections which guard our rights of property
rom attack under color Of law-to determine, in
ther words, W hat is vested light. The questions
onnected with taxation are every day becoming of
1ore and more pres ing importEnce-the taxing
ut horty is, after all, but one arm of that ire.
lendous power Of eminent domain, at the foot Of
'hich, so far as uncontrolled, every citizen less
rostrate, and the consequences of the earlier
ecision, leaving his engine in the bands of unre-
trained legislative authority, Stems to have AVA
ened that &C nservative jealousy of power which
ever lies long dormant in the breasts of our peo-
lie. Certai it is that the more recent constitu-
Ons, and the NOR resent judicial decisions show
10 often i'll regulated and desperate will of our
and hasty legislation. (Sedswick on
tate and Constitutional Law--p. 673.)
The extension Jof the limits city town in
ude its actual enlargement manifested by houses and
puaton is to be deemed legitimate exercise Of legG
tive power indefinite unreasonable extension 40
embrace lands and farms at distance from the local
does not vest upon the authority. And
though it may be delicate well o difficult duty
the judiciary to interpose have doubt but
limits beyond which the legislative discretion
mot CO. 1t is not of injustice oppression
ch may be reached and is not every which will
thorize Judicial tribunal to enquire into the minute
eration of law imposing taxes defining the bounda-
of local jurisdiction The extension Of the limits Of
LEGAL authority may in be greater than il
necessary to include the adj AGENT population
rritory laid out into city lots without being pre-
nted which the courts would be called upon apply
nice or exact scrutiny to its practical operatio
ght be case of fragrant injustice palpabe wrong
counting to the taking Of private property without such
mpeasatof in return the taxpayer is at liberty to
nsider just equivalent for the tax.
In the of the city Of Covington Southgate Is
Monroe 493 it held by the that Souhgato
made town upon his land and desired none, and
appeared legitimate necessity to justify the
nson of the oty boundary without his consent it
ned of taxation for the benefit of Others
der the color of taxation appropriation Of private
operty without conn nsation.
We think the made by the present plaintiff quit
strong as the cited His land is situated too far
Din the city Of to be deemed any just
part of It, He does desire to lay it of into city lots
desires to it farming land is to that tbs
election offered by the city authority the privilege Of
ting at the city