The Orangeburg news. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1867-1875, 1873-08-30

license case to day As tile gounds up
on which it is based are general and
apply to all cits licenses imposed for the
purpose of revenue and to all the cities
and towns in the State, it will doub .lcss
prove interesting to most of our readers
TIE DECISION.
Richland-At Cham bers.-Thc State of
South Carolinh, ox parte the Citizens
Savings Bank of South Carolina and
South Carolina Bank and Trust
Company, against the City of Colu,n.
bia and Jesse i. Dent, Sheriff of
Elchlnnd Couaty-Prohibitio
The issues in This case arc entirely of
law, and were argued before me, on the
! 10th Instant, by Mr.. Youmans for re
lators and Mr.. Tradewcll, city attorney
respondent. They arise on the answer
of The City Of Columbia" municipal
corpora ton, to rule issued on the
application of the REALTORS to mo in the
absence Of the judge of the Fifth Circnit
from the State, requiring c1usc to be
shown why writ OF prohibition should
not issue in accordance with tie PRAYER
of the rclators suggestion.
The REALTORS, banking corporations
ander acts of Assembly Of this State.
have carried on their business Of banks
within the jurisdiction OF said municipal
corporation duridE thus much Of the
present ypar, ar Nboe~ uge ,fruy nave
done 80 witlIout liking out the Licenses
and paying into the city treasury each
the sum Of two hundred dollars as re-
quired by an ordinance of said munici.
pal corporation to regulate licenses for
the year 1879, cDacted December 23.
1872, the said corporation has issued
against the rclators respectively execu-
tons for the collection Of sai sums, and
directed them to and lodged them with
the said sheriff, who threatens there
under to levy by distress and sale of the
goods and cha,tcls of the REALTORS the
amounts thcrc,f.
The suggestion sets out various
grounds of prohibition, all of which are
contested by the City of Columbia
Some OF the questions involved are no,
free from doubt but the view taken AS
to the first ground relied on in the sug-
sestiOn renders it unnecessary to pass
upon 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
ordnance, or to require payment By the
REALTORS for the issuing of licenses to
them as banks, or to issue the executions
against them, first, because the power of
the City Of Columbia to raise revenue, Of
which said ordinance is any exercise, is
only by way of taxation. and expressly
limited TO assessment and collection of
taxes tor corporate purposes, equal and
uniform in respect to persons and pro-
perty, as appears by sections &c. 81 and
Al Of article ! section 33 of article 2.
and sections /, 8 and of article 9, and
various other provisions Of the constitu
tion Of this State, all of which have
been violated by said ordinance, it is
alleged"
Both the pleadings and the argument
concede what is unqucstionably correct:
That this ordinance assesses. and the
executions are for the collection oftaxes.
Tor the purpose of raising revenue. In
addition to the provisions of Article l,
Section 3G /; Article III, Section 80, and
Article IN, Section /, prescribing uni
formlty and equality as the rule of
taxation, the 9Th Section of the 9th
Article. of the State constitution is as
follows:
"Ihe corporate authorities of counties,
townships, school districts, towns and
villages may be vested with power to
assess aud collect taxes for corporate
purposes such taxes to be uniform i n
respect to persons and property withia
the Jurisdiction Of tho body imposing
the same:"
Ihls language seems too plainly to
establish uniformity as the rule of taxa
tion to admit of doubt, and au inspection
OF the ordinance shows clearly that this
rule prescribed by the constitution has