Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-02-13
Merchants Tax.

A test case involving the conStitutionality
of the law taxing m rchants has just been
prepared and tried in the Law Court, in
behalf Of number of the leading mer-
chants of Nashville, and appealed to the
Supreme Court, where it viii be tried and
decided at once.
K. P. Jenkins, one of our Well-known
wholesale druggists, paiG his tax under
protest, and this is an action to recover it.
The following statement Of facts was agreed
upon:
1. That the plaintiff is a wholesale drug
gist, doing business at Nashville, Tennes-
see, and has been during the time for which
the tax in question was assessed and col
lected.
2. That $1,000 was the cash value of the
largest amount of goods which the plaintiff
had in stock at any one time, subject to
taxation, during the year commencing on
the 18th day of January, 1871, and ending
the 18th day of January, 1872.
8. That under the acts Of the Legislature
Of 1869-70, chapter As, sections ITO, and
act of 1S70-71, chapter 81, section 2, w. G..
Ewin, Clerk ofthe County Court of Davidson
county, Tenn, assessed and collected from.
the plaintiff S240 tax for the State, of
which S120 was collected as ad valorem tax
on capital stock, and Sl20 was collected as
a license or privilege tax as merchant, for
the year commencing on the 18th day OF
January, 1871, and ending on the 18th day
of January, 1872, and the said Ewin col
lected S220 for the county Of Davidson for
the same year, of which six mills on the
| dollar or S120 was collected as license or
privilege tax as a merchant, and five mills
on the dollar or 500 was collected as the
ad valorem tax on capital stock.
4. That the plaintiff paid this tax under
protest, alleging it was not lawful for the
said Ewin, clerk, etc, to collect this tax,
and this action is brought to recover the
amounts so paid by the plaintiff.
8. That if the Court should be of opinion
that said tax was illegally collected from
the plaintiff, then judgment shall be for the
plaintiff, otherwise for the defendant.
Messrs. H. E. Jones and T. NJ. Steger re-
| present the plaintiff, Acknowledgements
| B. Heiskell and a. J. Coldwen represent
| the State.
By agreement of counsel on both sides
the case was submitted to Judge Guild Of
| the Law Court without argument and yes
| terday he rendered the following decision
This cause has not been argued before
me and give such opinion upon the law
and the agreed case as am enabled to ar
| rive at.
By the Constitution of Tennessee 'tht
Legislature shall have power to tax mer-
chants, peddlers, and privileges in sucl
manner as they may from time to time
| direct"
The question before me is, has the Legis-
lature constitutionally exercised the power
vested in them by the Constitution in levy.
| ing tax upon merchants, as appears by
said acts specified in the agreed case. Be
! fore the judiciary should declare an act Of
! Assembly unconstitutional, its unconstitu
tionality should be made apparent to ths
court.
1t does not so appear to me and therefore
| l order judgment to be entered in thi:
cause for the defendant. 10. G. GUILD,
Judge Law Court.
An appeal was taken to the present tern
of the Supreme Court, and we understand
the case will be set for hearing at an early
day.