Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1873-06-19
&eadimg
PROPERTY TAX DECISION.

IN THE COMMON PLEAS, FAIRFIELD, MAY TERM,
1873. JAMES NJ. RUTLAND, PLAINTIFF, RE-
sPoNDENT, vs. HENRY A. SMITH, COUNTY
TREASURER, DEFENDANT, RESPONDENT
APPEAL FROM TRIAL JUSTICE.
In this case the plaintiff paid the defendant
a tax assessed under the act of March, IL,
1872 entitled "an act for the relief of the
widows and orphans of persons killed because
of their political opinions" (XV. stat, 2O6.)
The plaintiff brought his action to recover
back the said tax on the ground that the levy
of the same was made in violation of section
l, article g. of the State constitution, which
declares that the General Assembly shall pro.
vide by law for uniform and equal rate of
assessment and taxation.
His Honor the Trial Justice gave judgment
for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals to
this court.
Argument of counsel was heard for the ap-
pellant and for the respondent.
1t is alleged by the respondent that the tax
in question is neither uniform nor the result
of an equal rate of taxation, inasmuch as the
property owners of Fairfield and eight other
counties are subject to the said tax, while those
of the twenty-three remaining counties of the
State are exempt from its operation, and that
the said tax is, therefore, violatve of the
clause of the constitution cited.
In the opinion of the court, the uniformity
of a tax does not depend upon the uniformity
of its operation, nor upon perfect equality
Of burthens as to all persons and localities.
Such system of taxation would be practi-
cally impossible.
All that the provisions of the constitution
invoked by the respondent could have been
designed to effect was that all persons under
the same circumstances should be uniformly
taxed.
When tax is levied for general State pur-
poses, the rate Of taxation must be the same
throughout the State, as all property holders
bear the same relation to the State; but for
county or local purposes, the rate of taxation
may vary according to the necessities Of the
county or locality, provided that the rate is
the same for all property in the county made
subject to the tax The burthen in this re-
spect is made to fall where the necessity ex-
lists or where the benefit is conferred.
Thus, in the levy of a tax for school pur-
poses, the rates in the several counties may
properly vary according to the assessed value
of property in the counties respectively, and
the number of children of scholastic age con-
tained in each.
If the assessed value of the property in the
county be small in the aggregate and the
number of children great, the school tax
would be increased accordingly. So new court
houses may be required in some counties, some
counties may have numerous bridges to build
or repair, while others may not be traversed
by any stream requiring bridge, and so some
counties may have more paupers in them than
others.
In all these cases, though the tax may vary
in proportion to the necessities of the respect
i've counties, yet, if assessed equally upon all
property in the county subject to taxation &C
cording to value, it is uniform" tax within
the meaning of the constitution. This equita-
BILE discrimination founded upon the local
needs of the people has been continuously as
serted since the adoption of our constitution.
Thus the county of Fairfield, from which this
appeal comes up, has paid during the past
and present fiscal year for general county pur-
poses tax of only one mill and half per
centum, while other counties under the acts
of the General Assembly have paid tax
during those periods of three (3) mills.
If, however, the property holders of one
county were taxed specially to support the in
digent widows and orphans Of another county,
or if the tax raised in one county for its local
requirements were expended specially for the
benefit of another, then would such tax be
properly the subject of complaint.
II we examine the act under which the tax
complained of was levied, we find that it ap.
plies to all the counties in the State in which
armed violence (presumed to be productive of
INDECENT widows and orphans) existed to such
an extent that the writ of habeas corpus was
suspended therein by his Excellency the Pres
ident of the United States. Fairfield is admit
ted to have been one of the counties in which
the writ of habeas corpus was so suspended.
The act declares as to those counties "where
the writ ofhabeas corpus has been suspended"
that "there shall be levied and collected at
the same time, and in the same manner that
all other taxes are collected, a special tax of
one-half CD mill on the dollar of the assessed
value of all the taxable property of each and
every of said counties, the proceeds Of which
tax shall be paid in the county treasury in
said counties, respectively, and shall constitute
pension fund for the support Of these indi-
gent widows and orphans of those persons who
have been killed in said counties because of
their political opinions: Provided, That if in
any county said levy of one.half CD mill on
the dollar shall be more than sufficient for the
support of the widows and orphans aforesaid
in said county, then said excess shall be ap-
piled to the school fund, to be disbursed &C.
cording to law"
The tax in question was paid pursuant to
the terms of this act, and in the judgmen of
this court was not only wise and beneGcent,
but in no respect contravenes the provision of
the constitution which declares that "the Gen.
eral Assembly shall provide by law for uni
form and equal rate Of assessment and taxa
tion."
The complaint of the plaintiff is without
merit either in law or equity. He does not
complain that his property is taxed at a rate
otherwise than that to which the property of
all the other citizens of Fairfield county is
subjected or that the tax itself is excessive, or
that its object is one not authorized by the
constitution, but he complains that like tax
is not laid upon all other counties in the State.
Yet it is manifest that such an extension of
this special tax would in no wise benefit the
plaintiff or relieve him of any burden, as the
fund accruing from such tax must necessarily
be disbursed in the county in which the tax
is levied.
tits, therefore, adjudged that the judgment
of the trial justice be reversed, and that the
defendant, the county treasurer Of Fairfield
county, have Judgment against the plaintiff
for his costs and disbursements.
This the ninth (9th) day of May, A. D. 1873.
r. i MACKEY Circnit .Iudre.