The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1873-08-26

Judge Cookies Opinion on the License
Law.
RIcHLAND-AT CHAMBRRs.- State
of South Carolina, er relatione the
Citizens Savings Bank of South Ca
rolina and South Carolina Bank and
Trust Company. against the CITY OF
Columbia and Jesse E. Dent, Sheriff
Of Richland County.
The issues in this case are entirely OF
instant, by Mr.. Youmans, for relators,
and Mr.. Tradewell, City Attorney, for
respondent. They arise on the answer
Of "tte city CT Columbia" municipal
corporation, to rule issued ION the ap-
plication of the relntors to me, in the
absence OF the Judge of the Fifth Cir
Quit from the State,) requiring cause to
be shown why a writ Of prohibition
should not issuo, in accordance with the
prayer OF the REALTORS suggestion.
The REALTORS, banking corporations,
under Acts of Assembly of this State,
havo carried on their business as banks,
within the Jurisdiction of snid munici.
pal corporation, during thus much Of
the present year, and because they have
done SO, without taking out the licenses
and paying into the city treasury, each,
the sum of 5000, as required by an ordi-
nance Of said municipal corporation to
regulate licenses for the year 1873,
enacted December 23 1872, the said
corporation has issued against the re-
lators, respectively, executions for the
collection of said sums, aud directed to
and lodged them with tho said Sheri fl,
who threatens hereunder to levy, by
distress and sale OF tho goods and chat
tells of the rclators, the amounts thereof.
The suggestion sets out various grounds
OF prohibition, all Of which are cor
tested by the city of Columbia. Some
OF the questions involved nre not free
from doubt; but the view taken as to
the first ground relied on in the suggcs-
ton renders it unnecessary to pass uuon
any other issues than those involved in
the pleadings in regard thereto. That
ground is, that "the city of Columbia
had no right to ordain said ordinance,
or to require payment by the rclators for
the issuing of licenses to them as banks,
or to Issue the executions against them.
FIrS., because the power of 'thc city OF
Columbia" to raise revenue, Of which
said ordinance is an cXerciee, is only by
way Of taxation, and expressly limited
to assessment and collection of taxes for
corporate purposes, equal and ,nJorm
IN respect 10 persons and propsry-as ap.
pears by Sections 36. 81 and Al of Arti-
Gle l, Section 33 Of Article II, and Sec
tons 1. 8 and 8 Of Article TX. and va
| rious other provisions of the Constitu-
ton OF this State, all of which have
been violated by said ordinance, it is
alleged.
Both the pleadings ana the argument
concede what is unquestionably correct
that this ordinance assesses and The
executions arc for the collection of
taxes Tor tho purpose of raising revenue.
In addition to the provisions of Article
l, Section 36. Article II, Section SO, and
Article TX, Section l, prescribing uni
tormity and equality as the rule OF ta1a-
tion, the eighth Section of the ninth
Article OF tie State Constitution ia as
follows: "The corporate authorities of
Counties. townships, school districts.
towns and villages. may be vested with
power to assess and collect taxes for
corporate purposes; such faces to be uni
form in respect to persons and property
within tho Jurisdiction of tho body i'm :
posing the same" This language seems
too plainly to establish uniformity as
the rule OF taxation, to admit of doubt:
and an inspection oi the ordinance
shows clearly that this rule prescribed
by the Constitution has been violated.
Nor IL this rcpugnance to the Constitu-
tion at all obviated by the fact, that all
bankers and banks are taxed alike. Tho
principles laid down in Cooley on Con.
stitutional Limitations, 493, 500, 5O4,
supported by q number of decisions in
sister States, where the proper construc-
ton OF similar constitutional provisions
has been adjudicated, and the reasoning
in the case of Knowton IS. the super
visors OF Rock County, 0 Wisconsin,
40, aud Of the Supreme Court of the
| United States, in Gilman rs the city Of
Sheboygan, Black, $40, are conclusive
1t ia, therefore, ordered, that writ of
prohibition do issue, in accordance with
the prayer of the suggestion, and that
the reiators have execution for their
costs. (Signed.l L. II. COOKE.
COLUMBIA, S. e., August 25, 1878.
In the cases Of E. J. Scott & Son,
private bankers, and D. Gambrin
broker, the samo decision is made.
Ihc terGucsttOn-Jud&c Cnrpenter's
| Reply to the Committee.
COLUMBIA, S. c., August %, 1878