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

pass laws for the levy at new specific taxes. and in
ciac taxes might be authorized. The principal dif-
ference between this and the last cited con-
ssts In the fact that there the tax levied under
city ordinance, and here IL Ia levied by general
law. In both the money To be put to local
purposes. In one sense undoubtedly, any tax levied
by n general law is State tax but IL the moneys
tn be put 10 local uses the only substantial diff
ference between that and levied by local action
consists In thisthat In the State levies the
tax, and In the other IL authorizes the levy. All
taxation must be authorized by the State; and we
know Of reason why all taxation for the ordinary
purposes of government may not be levied under
general laws when no express provision Of the Con-
| stitution forbds 1t. Such legislation Is novelty
| In this State or elsewhere. Highway and school
| taxes are very commonly levied in that way, the
loca authorities, as TO some of them, having OPP
ton, but being put under legal compulson to
and collect them. The school mill tax may be taken
an illustration Collected under general law, it
was nevertheless put to the uses OF the community
which paid 1t; and II was In no proper sense any
thing more than local tax. Neither is the tax now
| in question.
q II is said the tax il invalid because il il not
levied ON any principle OF equality or uniformity
and consequently lacks of the essential elements
| of lawful taxation. II the precise point here is
that the tax is unequal and unj because IL is not
levied in proportion to the business done, then
the objection ia without force. IL may possibly be
true that an apportionment according TO the bust
ness done would have been more inst; but a ques-
ton of this nature concern the Legislature and not
MS. Coarts cannot annu tax laws because of their
operating unequaly aLd unjustly; If they could
they might defeat all taxation whatsoever; for there
never yet was a tax law that not more less
unequal and unjust in ts practical workings. Kirby
VS.. Shaw, ~ Penn. ST. 25s Commonwealth VS..
Savings Bank, s. Allen, 423 Allen VI. Drew, Al VT,
l74 Grim Va. School District 81 Penn St., 433 I;
People VS.. Worthington, Fl Ill III Coburn
Richardson, Mass, 2l3, 2l5 Cote vs. Savings Bank
| 80 Conn. 49, 1884, But the objection TO q want of
uniformity is wholly misplaced here. Uniformity
is the very basis of this tax: II is levied entirely
without discrimination; and the real objection
made TO il is. not that lacks uniformity but that
the Legislature were unjust in making IT uniform
instead of levying II by some standard of discrimin
alton. The objection presents case of misappll-
cation of terms. 1t is also presented to the wrong
tribunal The question whether tax is Just and
equal not is not question of law. And this will
meet any objection To the law based upon the fact
that other kinds OF business not similarly taxed
| Apportionment of taxation is purely Legislative
JUNCTION.
5. 1t is urged that the tax is void a local
because the municipalities have no voice in its
levy and collection. In support of this objection
decisions cited in which this Court affirmed the
right OF the municipalities to choose their local
officers. and 10 decide for themselves whether they
would burden their property with taxes for mere
local convenences in which the people of the State
ct large had no interest. Those decisions were
made in in which the municipality was Oh
iecting to unusual legislation which proposed TO
subject II To extraordinary burdens. There IL
nothing of the like nature here. The municipality
is not complaining and the legislation proposes to
make its burdens lighter instead of heavier. The
complaint, il any local rights invaded, comes
from the wrong source. The city ought to be here
showing cause why she should be compelled to re-
cause why they should not pay it over to
the city. When the city of Detroit shall OBJ
ject to have the money thrust upon her, it will be
time enough to inquire whether any of her
privileges taken away by the law at present it
is sufficient to say that parties whose interests
directly antagonistc to those of the city in regard
to the particular matter in controversy not TO
be heard Directing on her behalf that the rights of
a city violated by the coectio of tax for her
use. But 1t cannot escape even the most casual OBJ
servaton that the purpose of this legislation far
IL involves local rights liz directly the opposite TO
that which held inadmissible an People vs..
Hurlbut. "a AIich a, and Park Commissioners vs.
Common Council of Detroit, % Mich. 22S. The
legislation which came under consideration in those
designed To eventuate in taxation of the
people OF Detroit against their opposition. This
only provides for general tax. which, far il
IL collected within any particular locality is handed
over to the local authorities and created To the
local contingent fund. As part OF that fund it
will be put to such purposes the local authorities
may agree upon, and presumptively these will he
the general purposes OF local government. The
law, therefore, favors the localities instead of fore
ing unusual burdens upon them.
4. 1t is objected that the Sheriff is made the col
lector of township, village and city taxes under this
law, when by right that duty and the fees given for
it's performance belong to the Township. Village
City Collector Treasurer. This objection, like
the last, comes from the wrong source. Those
whose behalf it IL made not here parties, and
we are not aware that they complain. The parties
taxed the persons who manifest this decided in
terest in the constitutional emouments of the Office
of Collector, and not those who said to be
titled to the fees If the objection a valid
it is not clear that 1t could invaldate the tax il
might only raise the question Of the right of par
tcular officer TO collect it. 1t is certain that il
could constitute no objection to the tax in equity
for as between the town city and the party taxed
the equity of the tax is not in the least affected by
the circumstances that the wrong officer is
deputed to collect ii if that constitutes
the only valid objection, but we
think the objection is without force
either at law or in equity. Admitting what these
| complainants insist upon, that the Township and
| City Collectors have a constitutional right to per-
hat 20 heir hon
the Constitution adopted IL does not follow that
they are ented to collect this tax. constitutional
right to perform the old duties cannot be extended
to duties merely because they happen TO be
of similar nature This law takes from the local OFF,
GERS nothing. The complaint of it IL that in provd-
! ing for duty it confers upon another officer
instead of upon the township and city officers. In
This there is nothing unusual. Sherifs in many
States collectors of taxes, and in this State they
have always in contingencies been collectors.
II is true that in collecting this tax the Sheriff acts
on behalf of the municipalities, but so he does in
any where the tax warrant is delivered to him,
AMI so the County Treasurer and Auditor-General
in collecting taxes for they collect the local
as well those levied for State purposes. The
whole tax system is something in which the State at
large is concerned, and the rules by which 1t may
| be made to operate harmoniously cannot be ruled
inhexible not to yield to circumstances when the
| Legislature deems 1t essential.
But there il another consideration that is con-
elusive this point. This objection, like the last,
is supposed to find its support in the reasoning of
this court in People Hubert "a Mich, A. But
In tnat case we tOOk especial snow tnat
some purposes the townships, villages and cities of
| the State could not be permitted to act independ-
emily, but were and must be subject to compusion
! of the State. The of taxes for general pur-
poses especially nstanced, and ii was said the
municipalities could not be left to collect these
to refuse to collect them at their volton they
must collect then and they must sustain local gov
eminent whether willing or not. To that extent
every part of the State concerned in the action
of every other part because disorder in locality
would derange more or less the whole system. In
the previous case of People VS.. Mahaney Is Mich,
4S7 1t had been decided that the State has power to
take control of the police of the city and this
cited with approval in People Hubert on the
express ground that the police of the State and
the preservation of order in every locality was
a matter of state concern and not of mere local
interest IL requires no argument TO demonstrate
this The effect upon the whole State Of abrogating
local government in single city or township and
leaving everything to disorder and to the unre-
strained passions of bad men, would inevitably be
pernicious beyond estimate.
Now the law under consideration. though having
revenue for object, has the police of the State
for another. II deemed important to adopt IL
a matter of public regulation. The Legislature saw
fit TO leave IL to the localities to enforce il not
ut their option and il il matter of reasonable
ference that they refrain from doing because the
refusal of locality to enforce 1t would introduce
disorder into the system. Whether that the
reason or not, they had. we think, unqueeton-
able right to make all such provisions they deemed
essential to preclude the possibility of the law being
nufed in any quarter. If to accomplish this II
was deemed essential to recommit the execution OF