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

garded the Inhibition OF license removal of en-
barrassing restrictions and mpediments. The pro-
vision agreed upon not In itself prohibition OF
the trafhc, and upon this the most diverse views
might be concentrated; but beyond this there was
no harmony Of purpose whatever With license pro-
hibited, broad field still left for legislation,
and each side might hope to obtain the advantage In
that and not to ind the constitutional provision in
terpose any serious obstacle For these reasons the
proceedings Of the Constitutional Convention are,
nearly "a possible worthless for giving aid in the
construction OF this provision, and we can only take
1t as 1t stands, and seek the meaning In the words
employed to express it,.
Does then.a tax upon the traffic in liquors come
within the condemnation Of this provision of the
Constitution AZ being equivalent to license OF the
rafhc? Ii 1t the same in legal effect, or Is 1t the
same according TO the popular understanding of the
| term license? This IL the question that presents
| itself for decision on this branch of the case.
The popular understanding OF the word license
undoubtedly Is permission to do something which
| without the license would not be allowable. This
to suppose was the sense in which IL was
made use of in the Constitution but this is also the
legal meaning. The object OF a license, says Mr..
Justice Manning, is to confer right that does not
| Mich, -, 40 Within this definition a mere tax
upon the traffic cannot be license of the traffic I'M
less the tax confers some right to carry the traffic
which otherwise would not have existed We do
not understand that such is the case here The very
act which imposed this tax repealed the previous
J law which forbade the traffic and declared il IL
legal. The trade then became lawful whether
taxed not and this law in imposing the tax did
not declare the trade illegal in the tax not
paid. SO far a. we can perceive, failure to
pay the tax no more renders the trade IL
legal than would like failure Of farmer
to pay the tax on his farm render its cultivation
illegal. The State has imposed the tax in each
case, and made such provision has been deemed
needful to insure its payment but il has not
fit TO make the failure to pay forfeiture of the
right to pursue the calling. If the is paid the
traffic is lawful but if not paid the traffic is equally
lawful There il consequently nothing in the
that appears to be in the nature of license. The
State has provided for the taxation of a business
existence. n
of which ii no longer prohibits and that is all
But it Is urged that by taxing the business the
state recognizes it's lawful character, sanctions its
existence, and participates in it's profits all of
which Is within the real intent of the prohibition of
license. The lawfulness of the business If by that
we understand II Is longer punishable and il
pable of constituting the basis of contracts
doubleday recognized when the prohibitnry law was
repealed bat rs the ilegality OF the traffic depend
ed on the law so its lawfulness new depends upon
its repeal The tax has nothing to do with it what
ever. Nowit is not claimed, so far are aware,
that the repeal of the prohbtory law was incompe-
tent and not recognition of the lawfulness OF
the traffic cannot make the tax law any other law
invalid. 1t is only the recognition of an existing
and Il conceded fact, and the courts could not re-
fuse to recognize it if they would.
The idea that the State lends its countenance TO
any particular traffic by taxing il to to rest
upon very transparent fallacy II certainly over
looks disreRards ideas that must always
underlie taxation Taxes not favors, they are
burdens. They necessary, it is true. to the
istence of government but they are not the less
necessity. II is deemed advisable to make careful
provision to preclude these burdens becominA need
lessly oppressive; but it is conceded by all the au-
thorities that under some circumstances they may
be carried to an extent that will be runous to ndi-
vlduals. IL would be a remarkable proposition,
under such circumstances that thing is sanctioned
and countenaneed by the government, when this
burden, which may prove disastrous, il imposed
upon 1t, while on the other hand it is frowned upon
and condemned when the burden il withheld. 1t
is safe TO predict that if such the legal doc
trine, any citizen would prefer to be visited with
the untaxed frowns of government rather than with
testimonials Of approval which represented by
the demands of the tax-gatherer.
IL may be supposed that some idea of special pro-
lection Is involved when business is taxed taxa
ton and protection being reciprocal. If the tax
upon any particular thing the consideration for
the thing given TO the owner in respect to it, this
might be so; but the kim of reciprocity in taxa
ton has no such meaning. No government ever
undertakes To- tax all it protects. Ii a government
were to levy only poll taxes, it would not be the
idea that il was TO protect only the persons of its
citizens, leaving their property open to rapine and
plumber. In this state our taxes derived mainly
from real estate; but it has been suggested
that real estate entitled to special consideration
in consequence In Great Britain real estate pays a
relatively insignificant portion of the taxes al
though in the social and political state it is
more important than al other property. As
a general fact the. United States has not taxed
real property, and, though during the recent
rebellion 1t taxed most kinds OF business for
war purposes, the number of subjects taxed
has been several times reduced by legislation since,
and may reasonably be expected to be further
duced hereafter But the business taxed is no
more protected than the business not taxed; and
the fisheries which are favored by bounties
much protected AZ either. All this is only an APP
portonment of taxation by the selection of subjects
which, under all the circumstances, II is deemed
wise and polite to subject 10 the burden. Whether
person in respect TO his property his occupa-
ton falls within the category of taxabes not is
immaterial affecting his claim to protection from
the government. 1t is enough for him that the gov
eminent has selected for itself its subjects
taxation and prescribed its own rules. 1t is his
liability to taxation at the will of the government
that entities him to protection, and not the circum
stance of his being actually taxed, and the taxation
OF thing may be, and often is, when police pur-
poses are had in view, means of expressing dis
approval instead of appreciation of what is taxed.
There has undoubtedly been felt and expressed
strong sentimental objection to the doing of any
thing by the State that even seemed to be a lending
| of its countenance to business which the OBJ
jectors regarded evil in itself, especially to the
State participating in the profits of pernicious
/ trade. But the objection never found expression
in laws forbidding the taxation of liquors OF the
business of dealing in them. Indeed in this State
liquors have always been taxable as property; and
have been the implements by means of which
! forbidden games of chance have been carried on.
Yet when the keeper of billiard tables is compelled
| TO pay a tax 1t be defense to him
| either IN law in morals that he is COM
PEELED to do so from the profits of illegal bust
ness. To refuse TO receive the tax under such cir
cumstances would tend to encourage the business in
stead of restraining it and would not only be unwse
! because of exempting from his fair share
of taxation but also because it would tend to defeat
the State policy which forbids games of chance or
hazard. The idea that if thing Is favored because
! IL is taxed may be examined in the light of the
practice of this State in other particulars. 1t
has always been the custom in apportioning taxes
/ by valuation to make determinations based
on reasons of public policy. As illustration we
may mention the case of property devoted to edu-
cational or charitable purposes, and which q rule
has been exempted from general taxation. The
general belief has been that the interests and well
fare of the whole community would be best sub
served by abstaining from any imposition of the
| burdens of government upon such property, and
the Legislature, in apportioning the taxes has
cepted this general belief and acted upon it, II has
been done matter Of favor and by way of
agement, and yet if the argument against the tax
in this liz sound we do not why this State
should not have evidenced its appreciation of edu-
cationa and charitable institutions by taking special
that they should feel its burdens while at the
time II stigmatized other things which were
regarded as immoral or pernicous by refusing to
permit them to appear on the tax roll. tax roll
might undoubtedly be made in this manner a roll Of
reputable Names or even roll of honor, but how
any sound public policy would be subserved by il
must require considerable ingenuity to point out
1t would assuredy not be such policy as States have
usually acted upon. While in the selection of OBJ
iects for taxation, is to be considered and
kept in view, 1t is impossible to exclude other
considerations. In proposing a tax il might ALWAYS
be question whether IL should be imposed upon
persons or upon property by value, and IL So upon
what property; or upon business, and il So what
kinds of business; or whether IL should not he a
c, mbination of all these One method might be the
easiest for the collection of the necessary revenue
but most injurious unequal in its results. one