The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1875-10-22

purpose Of revenue and reg uiathon.
This state has never shown any inclination to
make things morally and legally wrong contribute
TO the public revenue when justice and good morals
seemed to require II. II IL were TO act upon the
ides OF refusing to derive revenue from such
sources, 1t ought TO decline to receive fines for
criminal ohenses with the same emphasis that il
would refuse To collect a tax from an obnoxious
bsincss II the taxes laid byway Of discourage
ment OF regulation, II has the same general object
In view with the ne not only as 1t affects the per-
son taxed and tho community bur also in the use to
which tne money Is devoted. Yet the Constitution
expressly provides for library fund.- TO be derived
from the violations Of the public law (Const.. art
49, sec: l2,l, provision that may as iegitimately
said 10 be license Of crime as q tax on ira fc may
be said to he license Of the traffic.
Taxes upon business are usually collected In the
form OF license fees; and this may possibly have
led to the idea that seems to have prevailed in some
quarters, that tax implied license But there il
no necessary connection whatever between them
business may be licensed and yet not taxed or n
may be taxed and yet not licensed. And 80 far IL
the tax from being necessarily license that proyi-
sion is frequently made by law for the taxation of
business that is carried on under license exist
ing independent of the tax.
Such is the case where cities under proper legisla-
tive authority tax occupations that carried ON
under licenses from the State. Guild vs.. Richmond,
% Graf, 464 Napier vs.. Hodges, 81 Texas, 2S7;
Cuthbert vs.. Conley, 80 Geo., 211; Wendover vs.
Lexington, Is Bellour, 25S The license confers the
privilege, but 1t is not perceived why privilege
thus conferred should not be taxed as much an any
other. The Federal laws give ua illustration Of the
taxation of illegal traffic. case in point was that
of the taxation of the liquor trac in the state pre-
vous to the repeal Of the prohibtory law; the Fed
eral law found business in existence and it taxed
it without undertaking to give 1t any protection
whatever. Mcclure Vs. Conn.,, Wall, 3s7; Puryear
vs.. CON-, 5 Wall, 475 What would have prevented
the State from taxing the same traffic at the same
time? Is il any restricted in the selection Of
subjects of taxation than the general govern
ment is? If one may tax and the same time refuse
to protect. may not the other do the same? The
only reason suggested for negative reply to these
questions IL that II was the State itself, not the
If...t. hat. do
would be inconsistent and absurd to declare
IL illegal and at the same time tax 1t. But
how the inconsistency would appear In
one rather than the other, is not apparent.
The ilegality declared by competent authority,
and yet the Federal government taxed the trade at
the same time refusing or being able to protect it,
II protection because OF the tax due to the very
thing upon which the tax was imposed there would
be an Inconsistency in taxing prohibited trade;
but treating taxation however and wherever it may
fall, the return for the general benefits of gov
ernment-for the protection 10 life, liberty, the
social and family relations az well AZ to business
and property-which is tine only legal and proper
idea of taxation. there is Inconsistency whatever
in making thing which il not protected one of the
measures standards by which to determine how
to the government. II one puts the government to
special Inconvenience and cost by keeping mp
prohibited traffic or maintaining a nuisance, the
fact is a reason for discriminating in taxation
against him and if the tax is imposed the thing
which is prohibited or which constitutes the nui-
sance, the tax law instead of being inconsistent
with the law declaring the iegality is in entire
harmony with its general purpose, and sometimes
may be even more effectual. Certainly, whatever
determinations made in taxation ought to be in
the direction of making the heaviest burthens fall
upon those things which are obnoxious to the pub
lie interests, whenever that Is practicable.
For these reasons we think the objections which
have been made to the law have validity.
The decree of the Superior Court dismissing the
bill will be affirmed with costs.
L. NJ. COOLEY,
IsAAC MANSON,
Il. 4. GRAVES,
j.. v. CAMPBELL.