Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-02-15
Chicot County Levee Law held Consti-
 tutional.
STATE OF ARKANSAS, IN THE SUPREME COURT.
 JANUARY TERM, 1860. Edmund McG ehee, Appellant,


 IN THE SUPREME COURT.
 JANUARY TERM, 1860. Edmund McGehee, Appellant,
 Martin R. P. Mathis as SherV of
 Chicot county, Ark, Appellee OPINION OF THE COURT.
 This was bill in chancery brought by Edmund McGehee the appellant, against Martin R F. Mathis as and in his capacity Of sherlh and tax collector for the county of Chicot.
 The bill alleges that the appellant during the years 1855, 1856 and 1857, entered and located with scrip, which had been issued upon levy con tracts made prior to the th day of January loo5, large quantity of swamp lands, amounting in the aggregate to over ninety thousand acres, situate in Chicot county. That the lands having been entered with such scrip were under the l4th section of the act of the 9th Jany, 1851, exempt from all taxation whatever for the space of ten years That the l4th section of this act repealed by the act ot the tn Jan'v, IS55 and the lands made suh feet to taxation for state and county purposes, other taxable pro- perty That by an act passed on the 1th of Jan uary 1857, the State authorized special leveetax to be levied in that county, under which no lands could be assessed at less than ten dollars per acre. That the evee tax the lands of the appellant, under that law, amounted to the of $4,74 45' annually, and that the sheriff proceeding to assess and collect the same. The prayer of the bill is that the sheriff be restrained from collecting any taxes on said lands until after the lapse of ten years from the date of entry: that the act of Jan uary llth, 1855, be declared vod as impairng the obligations of contracts, and that the special evee tax laid be declared unconstitutional and likewise vod
 An injunction was granted in strict accordance with the prayer of the bill.
 The appellee answered. averrng that the lands in the bill mentioned, subject to taxaton and had been regularly assessed under the levee act He also in his answH, specially insisted that there was no equity in the bill-that the court had no jurisdiction to restrain by injunction decree, the collection of tax levied under the authority of law and that at the hearing, he would rely on these defences.
 To expedite the cause, the following agreement, in writing, entered into by counsel represent ing the parties, which was filed and became part of the record in the cause viz:
 "l. The lands mentioned in the bill situate in Chc0t county, are confirmed swamp lands, ,and were purchased by the complainant with scrpissued upon levee contracts made prior to the llth January, 1855, but were actually purchased and entered after the passage of that act. They are what are known as aluvial lands, and are owned by McCIehee, who | is nonresident, and citizen of the State ot | Tennessee.
 "2 Under the act of the l lth January, 1855, the said lands were furnished to the defendant, as as of Chicot county, by the auditor in due form of law and by such assessor regularly assessed for | the year lS0i, Tor oLdle anu county tdAtS, anu those taxes being stricken outby the county court leaves only the evee tax as the subject matter oi | controversy.
 "3 Under the act of the 7th January, 1857, con- corning levees in Chicot county, levee inspectors 1 were elected, a levee board instituted, meetings held the county divided into levee districts, the sessment list made out and returned, andpassed on by the county court, the valuation and tax fixed as appears by the exhibits to the answer, and the | evee tax book delivered to the defendant she riff, all in due time and according to that act.- | The levee tax thus assessed, being unpaid, pub | lication and advertisement was made in strict ac cordance with that act, and the sale prevented by | the injunction.
 A The steps taken and the proceedings had | have been in accordance with said act; but the complainant insists that the act is unconstitutional and that said lands are not taxable for levee pur poses, the defendant affirming that they "5. The leyee tax assessed on said lands amount to the named in the bill
 l "6. Replication to the answer, in short, and the cause to be heard by consent at the present term on bill, answer, exhibits, Replication and thi, agreement"
 On the final hearing the injunction was dissolved and the bill dismissed for want of equity. In dspOsing of the several questions raised anC argued, we will first consider the objections taker | to the validity of the act of 7th January, 1857. That act provides that the county of Chicot shal be laid off into levee districts That for each dis trict there shall be elected inspector, who sha pside theren and that no person shall be entitled to vote ill such election who does not reside on ol cultivate alluvial lands in the county.
 After providing for the qualification of the seve ral inspectors, and their organization board, il is further enacted in substance, by the l4th section of the act, that there shall be levied and collected in the county of Chicot, annual levee tax all al6val lands iii said county, that would be bene- fitted by levees, and which are or shall be taxa be for State revenue, the rate thereof to be hXed l by the county court for each year-commenc- ! ing with 1851 at not less than one fourth of one per centum nor than one per centum upon l the assessed value of said lands-provded that no lands so taxed shall be valued at less than ten dol. lars per acre that each levee inspector shall the lands in his district, and shall be the sole judge of what land would be benefited by levee work, and shall embrace in his assessment list only such as he shall deem of that description, and that they shall make out and certify under oath, their respec- tive assessment lists and make due return thereof
 By the 18th section of the act, it is made the duty of the court upon the return of the assessment | lists, to make an order levyng the tax, in which l the amount per acre and time of payment are to be | des gnated, which order is to be published in the manner prescribed by the act, and on such publca- ton being made, all the lands in said county sub ject to the tax, arc to be considered as duly and legally assessed, and the tax duly levied thereon and such order being recorded by the clerk of the circuit court it is made his duty to attach copy of the same to each tax list of the State and county l revenue--Inade out annually-and to extend the said tax against all lands ect thereto, contained ill such list, in d separate column, to be provided | for that purpose.
 Then comes the last clause of section 18th, which is as foIlows:
 "And said board of levee inspectors shall have power and it is hereby made their duty, at their annual meeting in May, to adjust the assessment l and levy of said tax, by hearing and deciding all questions relating to the improper assessment and location of aav land, the omission to assess and tax any legally taxable under the provisions ot this act and make additions to or deductions from Inc taxesas chargein such list upon any land or against any person whatsoever, and such correction and de duction may be made eupon the affidavit of the per. son applying therefor, stating the ground upon which it is claimed, any other information or evi dence satisfactory to the board of inspectors whose decision thereupon shall be final; such board shall make a list of all such corrections and deductions and deliver the same to the clerk who shall certify and attach a copy thereof to such tax lis. made out by him, whether the same shall have been previ- ousIv delivered to the collector of the State and county taxes, otherwise, and so reform such lists as to make them conform thereto, and the collector of the taxes shall collect" etc., etc.
 The first objection relied on, is, that so much ot the act requires the lands to be assessed at not less than ten dollars per acre, i'll conflict with that 
 perty subject to taxation shall be taxed according to it's value--that value to be ascertained in such manner as the General Assembly shall direct; mak' ing the same equal and uniform throughout the State" In answer to this, it is sufficient to say that this clause of the constitution applies to taxa ton for State purposes alone, held by this court on careful review of its former decisions, in | Washinqton US. The State l3 Ark. 475.
 It is next insisted that so mach of the 18th sec tion of the act as conters on the board of in spectors certain powers therein mentioned, conflicts with Section 9. Art. 6 of the constitution, which declares that the county court shall have Juris- dcton in all matters relating to county taxes, dis bursements of money for county purposes, and in every other that may be necessary to the in- ternal improvement and local concerns of the re- spective counties"
 The term "taxes' as employed in this clause oi the constitution, must be construed to have refer ence to taxation for general county purposes, which is common burden imposed for the common wei fare, and not to special local assessments Gas pro vided for by the act of 7th January, lS57,l where the fund raised is expended for the improvement O the property taxed. Legislative sanction of sucf assessment is ordinarily procured by the action O. the parties interested; and that they are widely distinguishable from taxation for governmental pur poses, is well established by the authorities
 In the Egyptian Leree Co. us Hardin, ? Ms souri 495, it appears that, for the purpose of re