Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1874-10-05

license taxes, aud that all such amendments
and substitutes were rejected, aud the existing
restrictive clause adopted
4th. We haze the coUtcmpOraDeouS rXposl-
tioo and copstructiou of this constitutional pro-
vis;on az shown in the action Of the Leglsla
ure upon it from its adoption down to he pas
sage OF the last tax bill, period of four years.
When upon the adoption Of the present constl.
tuition, the legislature came to make tax bill
with the former law before them, imposing
license tax upon the general merchant, know
ing that from this source an immense revenue
had been derived they X pt 10 existence the
other license taxes which we're allowed under
this Constitution and struck out the merchants
license tax, imposing taxes upon HIM under the
ad valorum system, and under that system they
continued to tax him for four years, during all
of which tune the State Was deeply indebted
her revenues insufficient for her needs, her IN
terest unpaid, her credit impaired, and every
available source 0. revenue sought Tor to rCmc-
DIV these evils. As was the case with the fram-
ers of the Constitution, the Immense revenue
70 he gathered from licensing merchants could
not have been overlooked or dsregardrd. The
oply reason why it Was not made available must
have been that the Legislature held that this
| constitutional provision was an nterdlct; that
the merchant could be reached by the ad vao-
rem system, and it was their duty to tax him
nv that system. That they did 50 tax him the
statutes declare
But it is said that the case Of Lewelyn Ser.
peant VS.. Lockhart, 81 Grattau, page, and
| Hirsh's case, idem, page -, substantially Decd
ed that it is within the Legislative discretion to
say what cases came within the clause, AN
other business which cannot be reached by the
ad yalorem SYSTEM" aud therefore whenever
the Legislature aay that license tax shall be
imposed, the question OF constltutlonallty is
decided, and the courts have no right to inter
fere.
On the contrary, 10 Leweyn, &c, vs.. Lock
ridge, a case 10 which it was alleged that the
LEGISLATURE had 10 constitutional right to lm,
pose q license tax upon the business of billiard
saloon keeper because ne had large capitSii IN
vested in his tables and fixtures which could pc
taxed ad vslorem, the court start out with the
declaration that the only question TOR them 10
! decide is whether keeping billiard saloon is Il
business which can BIZ reached by the I'D valo-
rem SYSTEM" Had they been Of opinion hat
within the legislative discretion they would have
simply said so. If they held this view no such
question as they consider ard decide could have
been the subject OF Judicial inquiry or decision.
1t is true the court in both the named cases, dc,
clare that the Legislature must, IN the nature OF
| Things, nave b lAIso uisCietioi' Az
the question as to what business can be reached
| by the ad valorem system, AID that the court
cannot say shat such discretion in these cases mas
| been so exercised as to make the tax laws un-
constitutional 1t would have been unnecessary
to say all this if the court hsd held that the Leg
islsture could exercise ualimted discretion a. 10
Whist cases could not be reached by the al va
| loren system But even admitting IN full force
the doctrine that it is for the Legislature to say
| VIVA. cases can or cannot be reached Dy the al
valorem system, in the case At bar the LeglS ia
ture has itself determined the question. 1t has
| declared BY its solemn enactments, year after
wear, that the general merchants business does
not come within the category OF business Whlcn
| cannot be reached by the ad valorem system.
| IL has declared that his business can be so
reached, and has taxed it under that system Tor
four wears. For these reason 1t CLEARLY APP
pears to my mind-frst, upon the pla n reading
of the 4th section Of article 10 Of the constitution
corresponding with the general intent runnlt
through the whole instrument; second, oy com
parison of the provisions Of this with the proVls-
| ions of TO rmer constitutions upon the same SUP
| iect matt er third, by rcfereLcr to the svowed
object of its trainers; fourth, upon the proceed
| ines of the convention which framed 1t ana
| fifth, upon its contempcrsneous construction ana
exposition by the Legislature acting under 1t
| that the imposition of license tax upon the gen
| ersi merchant is not within the power OF the
| Legislature under the present constitution.
At the conclusion of The reading OF the opln-
| ion. the Commonwealth moved to set aside
the verdict which the Court overruled The
| Commonwealth then filed bill of exceptions.
The case will be taken to the Court OF Appeals,