The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-01-08
its general sovereign powers are imposed By
its provisions. II, therefore, -

I Its general sovereign powers are imposed b!
its provisions. II, therefore, etst -
!. r.s arHE POWER 70 TAX 81
any subject whatever Is not excluded by h
terms Of the Constitution, or, 6y ,necessar!
and ineo,tG6le implication, it must exs
In the General Assembly, to be exercised b.
that body as wisdom and proper sense o
Ijustice shall direct" Ill r,t DL. rsHI
It is clear, therefore, upon principle ant
authority that the act iu.question is clearly
within the grant of Legislative power, and Il
there be; nothing in the provisions Of the
Constitution to limit or control the exercise
of that power, it is sovereign, absolute. and
supreme. .:.ss t.ra.t-.. Ia
Let us now inquire whether the, Constitu-
ton has limited or restricted this general
power Of taxation conferred exclusively
upon the legislative department Of the Go
yernment so as to prohibit the Legislature
from imposing license.tax on merc hants.
That there is no such express prohibition
| will be conceded by all. If such prohibit
ton exists at all it is only BY implication,
and such implication must be clear and un-
questioned before it can operate as restric.
tion OF that supreme power over the sub
ject of taxation which, under every system
of free government is, vested solely in the
legislative department. Two
PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION
are invoked by the learned counsel for the
appellees as furnishing, BY clear implications,
q prohibition upon our Legislature to i'm
pose Hcense.taS upon merchants. They
are contained In the 1st and 4th sections of
article 10 Of the Constitution, and read as fol-
lows: 80 4ls*
"Section /. Taxation, except as herein.
after provided, whether imposed by the
State, county, or corporate bodies, shall Oe
equal and uniform: and all property, both
real'and personal, shall be taxed 10 pr6por-
tion to its value, to be ascertained as pre-.
|scribed By law. No one species of property
from which a tax may be collected shall be
taxed higher than other species of property
Of the'sanle yalue.'
" "Scction &. The General Assembly may
levy tax on incomes in excess Of six hun.
dred dollars per annum."
"And upon the following licenses-viZ.:
The sale of ardent spirits, theatrical and
circus companies, menaseries; iugglers, itin-
Grant peddlers, and all other shows and ex-
hibitiops for which an entraTce-fee is re-
CURED; commission merchants, persons SELL
ing by sample, brokers, and pawnbrokers,
and all other business which cannot be
reached By the al ualorena system. The
capital invested in all business operations
shall be assessed and taxed as other pro-
perty. Assessments upon all stocks shall be
according to the market value thereof"
The argument of the learned counsel for
the appellees to show that these two sections
furnish by clear implications
PROHIBITION
upon the Legislature to impose lcense-tax
upon merchants, when succinctly stated, is
this: The fundamental rule of taxation, as
declared by the 1St section, Is that it shall be
"equal and uniform; that the exceptions
to this fundamental rule are those found in
the 4th section, and that this section, con-
tanning the exceptions to the fundamental
rule, must be strictly construed, and that
the general merchant not being named in
this section no license-taX can be imposed
on him. Now. in the first place, l think it
may we'll be questioned Gf it has not been
already settled by this COURT if the 1st sec
ton, article 10. when it tdeclares the rule OF
equality and uniformity, does not apply that
rule to taxes on property alone; for
immediately following the declaration of
that rule is the provision that =" all property
shall be taxed in proportion to its value"
mo one species of property from which
tax may be collected shall be taxed higher
than any other species of property of the
same value" ..-..
A similar provision is to be found in the
constitutions of many of the other States OF
the Union, and the same terms, "equal and
uniform" are employed in most of them.
In the constitutions Of Tennessee, Louisiana,
Arkansas, Missouri, Massachusetts, Illinois,
Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan, and California,
the rule of equality and uniformity is en-
Joined either in terms or by equivalent ex-
pressiens, and ia giving them construction
it has been generally held that the terms
"equal and uniform" apply only to
A DIRECT TAX
on property, and that the clause by which such
EQUALITY and uniformity is prescribed does
not limit the power of the Legislature as to
the subjects Of taxation, but is only intended
to prevent an arbitrary taxation of property
according to kind or quality without regard
to value. Sedgwick. 5O2-3, and cases there
cited, and Note, Il Grattan, pages 434, 435.
Mr.. Sedgwick, in his valuable work on
construction OF statute and constitutional
h.u
States of the Union having similar provisions
TO ours, declaring in some form the rule OF
equality and uniformity, and citing decisions
constituting these provisions, says: "These
provisions have been generally held inappli-
cable to licenses" SedgWick, 5O3-Note.
But conceding that the terms in the first
section are broad enough to cover every sub
iect of taxation, yet, in the language OF Judge
nI, tx forss :
it can osIy be so applied, so far as practical
Bile. II .-.r na... .-........
.... A GIVEN SUBJECT
he only susceptible of d modified application
of princinle, 1t must receive this, and not
he rejected because the rule cannot be ap-
nlied with perfect precision to its whole ex-
tent and in all its results. IA Gfattan, 435 ;
City of Richmond Us. OuId & Darlington,
% Grattan.
In lhe construction of the words used in the
constitutions of many of the States TO the eHect
that " Taxation shall be equal and uniform 4"
The rule to be extracted from numerous ae-
cisions would seem to be this: UnJ0Tnuty
must be such as is compatible aolM he su6-
;ectmatter; and as to license, the only un,-
fo,naity REQUIRED IS that the tar shdU oe the
same on all those in the same 04SaneSS.-
Sedgwick, I'd ed, 504-Note.
RI1t. conceding to the fullest extent the
proposition of the learned counsel for the
appellees that the 1st section, article 10, de
ciares the fundamental rule of taxation 10
be applied to all subjects Of taxation,'and
that the 4th section only enumerates the ex'
ceptions to the general rule, the question
| then recurs, Are merchants within the ex,
ception? That merchants are not excluded
from the exceptions in express terms is Ger
| tain. Are they excluded by clear impllca
ton? The argument is that because the