The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-10-05
OPINION OF THE COURT.

verdict of not guilty.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
Judge Guigon, after hearing the motion,
delivered bis opinion as follows:
The instruction prayed for by the defend.
ants in this case asks, in effect, that the tax
bill passed by the Legislature, SO far as it
imposes license tax upon merchants, shall
be declared unconstitutional. It is not dis
puted that the power of the Legislature to
impose taxes is unlimited except in SO far as
it is expressly, or by necessary implication,
restrained by the Constitution, and it is
equally true that no court will undertake to
declare tax law unconstitutional unless it
clearly appears that such law is made in yio-
lation or disregard of such constitutional re-
striction. The defendants in this case rely
especially upon the 4.b section, article 10, of
the Constitution, as the provision which has
been directly violated by the legislation in
question; and generally upon the scheme of
taxation. as set forth in the Constitution,
! showing the intention, except in certain
specified eases and classes, (which the gen
eral merchant is not specifically embraced,
| to confne taxation to property and in pro-
portion to its value. The 4th section pro.
yides that the Legislature may impose tax
upon incomes and ''upon the following Ii.
censes-viz.: the sale Of ardent spirits, the
atrical and circus companies, menageries,
ijuggers and itinerant peddlers, and all
other shows and exhibitions for which on
entrance fee is required; commission mer.
chants, persons selling. by sample, brokers,
! and paWnbrokers; and all other business
| which cannot be reached by the ad valorena
system, the capital invested in all business
shall be assessed and taxed as other pro.
perty," sc.
There can scarcely be question, upon
reading this clause, especially If taken IN
connection with the general provisions re-
ferred to, that the trainers of the Constitu-
tion intended to limit the power OF the Le'
gisIature to tax licenses. 1t is the plain
meaning of the clause that in certain specl'
fed cases and classes they may impose a
license tax; IN other cases not specially
named nor embraced in the general classih.
cation they may not impose such tax. But
il is said that while it is true that 1t appears
ON the face Of this clause that it was intended
To, restrict the legislative power to tax
licenses. the trainers Of the Constitution did
not sufficiently understand their business
10 do 80 successfully, and that by the ad-
dition of the words "all other business
which cannot be. reached by the dd valo'
rem system" they remitted to. the Legls'
lature the power to tax all business
through the license law. In other words,
the Constitution Intentionally took from the
Legislature certain powers with one haho
and unintentionaly returned them with the
other. know of no. rule of constitutional
construction which would justify me In ar.
riying at such conclusion. 1t would be 70
violate that canon of construction WMcn
declares nthat effect is to be given, II posi-
Bile. to the whole instrument, and TO every
section and clause. II different portions
seem to conflict, the courts must harmonize
them, if practicable, and lean in favor OF !
construction which will render every Woro
operative, rather than one which VIII MAKE
some idle and nugatory. ~ Cooley on Ldao. tlal
Certainly the business of the general mer %
chant is not one of the numerous speeifee
pursuits on which the Legi Stature is author
ized to impose g license tax. They may lHl
nose. by express provision, such'Fa q tax upoi
commission merchant, upon b sample mer me
chant. and upon business OF other specihee
kinds. WHY this omission sof the genera
lmerchsnt2 IL could not have been that " Ems
tbe most important source or revenue
excspt the land tax, amounting Q, Iotssoye 9,
$500. 600 annually under TIE former Con 9I
stitution and laws, was goYer!ooaaesa sl .
dtsrepaTded. Knowing the anc
~ ~ sfha M. the magnitude Of the reYenlu el
~ n n ,u y fha fyafnefH "a