Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1876-06-04
sPIRITUOUS LIQUOR VENDERs
Important Decision Of the Supreme
Court Sitting at Nashville Upon
the Question OF Privilege
Taxes,

We find in the Knoxville Tribune the
text of q suprems court decision deliv-
cred recently by Judge Sneed, which
bears upon taxation by county courts,
and is Of general interest. For some six
years venders of spirituous liquors in
this county have paid taxes at q. rate
similar to that declared illegal by the
supreme court; and had these taxes been
paid under protest, the county would
now have to refund a rather formidable
amount to the parties from whom they
were collected. The decision is as fol.
lows:
Stern Vs. Lewis. The plaintiff Is Ii.
censed retailer of spirituous liquors in the
city Of Knoxville, and the defendant is
the clerk OF the county court of the
county of Knox, and collector of the
county tax upon privileges. The plain
tiff paid to the defendant, under protest,
the county tax upon said privileges for
1876, and thereupon brought this action
before justice OF the peace - recover
the excess in the tax for 1875, over the
amount he had been paying for previous
years. He complains that to the ex-
tent Of said increase the tax is oppres
sive and unlawful. The justice rendered
judgment sustaining the tax, and upon
appeal to the criminal court OF said
cOunty-haviDg jurisdiction by law of
such cases-there was like result. The
agreed case shows that at the April term
Of the county court, 1875, the court fixed
the rate of taxation on privileges aud
property for county, railroad and school
purposes. The record contains schedule
Of the rate of taxation thus fixed upon
property, privileges and peils, for
county, railroad and school purposes.
According to said assessment, mer.
chants are required to psy on the cspi-
tai invested an al VGt0Tem tax for couD-
ty purposes, Of 20 cents on the $100; Is
cents for railroad purposes and 10 cents
for school purposes. Liquor dealers by
wholesale and liquor dealers by retail
are taxed upon the capital invested as
other merchants, and, in addition, the
privilege of retailing spirituous liquors is
taxed for county purposes $3.50, and a
like amount each for railroad and school
purposes, making the total amount of
the county-tax for said privilege $3.50.
The p-operty-tsx is fixed for county pur-
poses at S5 cents on each $l00; for rail-
road purposes at 10 cents on each 500.
The privilege OF running an omnibus is
fixed at 81 for the county-tax, 81 for the
raiIroad-tax, and 81 for school.tsx The
plaintiff rests his case on the proper con.
struction of statute which Is in these
words: "The county courts of the respect
i've counties of this State shall not levy
any higher pro rata rate of taxes on any
species of property, privilege or poll than
any other which is taxed by the law of
the State; but the percentage of, as com.
pared with the State-tsx shall be equal
and uniform, and that the taxes assessed
for county purposes shall not exceed
the rate of tax provided by this act"
Acts 1870 ch. 81, SO; Code, 491. The Leg
islature has the power under the consti-
tuition to authorize the counties and in
corporated towns of this State to impose
taxes for county and corporation pur-
poses respectively, in such manner as
shall be prescribed by law, and all prop
erty shall be taxed according to its
value, upon the principle established in
regard to State taxation. Art. 2, sec. 29.
Tie preceding section of the same article
provides that all property, real personal,
and mixed, shall be taxed; that ali
property shall be taxed according to its
value, the value to be ascertained in
such manner as the legislature shall di.
rect, SO that taxes shall be equal and
uniform throughout the State; no one
species Of property from which tax
shall be collected shall be taxed higher
than any other species Of property OF the
same value, but the legislature shall
have power to tax merchants, peddlers
and privileges in such manner as they
may from time to time direct. Art. 2,
sec. %. The legislature has, in obedi-
ence to this authority, delegated to the
county courts the authority to levy and
collect taxes for county purposes, and
among these for school and railroad
purposes. Code, SO. $40, 1150. It is clear,
then, that the law which governs
the levy and collection of privi-
Iege taxes is the discretion OF
the legislature, and having such
discretion, it was clearly competent for
the legislature to impose upon the
county courts the restrictions contained
In the statute on which the plaintiff re-
lies in this case It will be seen that the
statute In question provides for absolute
equality and uniformity in the rate Of
taxes upon all manner Of privileges, 30
that the percentage Of the same, as
compared with the State tax, shall be
equal and uniform. 1t is said, in the case
of Adams Us. NJ. & A. Somerville, that
there was good reason for vesting in the
legislature discretionary power IN the
power in the taxation Of privileges upon
a different principle from that which re"
gulates the taxation OF property, because
it was not intended as source OF re-
venue merely. II was also designed as
a means of imposing restraints upon the
exercise OF certain privileges whose ten
denotes were of a nature to encourage
vice and disorder, or were contrary to
public policy. Sneed, 367. The statute
now under consideration was not in
force at the time of the adjudication of
the csse referred to. By this statute the
Iesislsture has required the county
courts TO ignore all moral distinctions
hetween the several privileges created
by it, and has placed Them all upon the
same footing, demanding for each an
absolute equality and uniformity In tax.
tion-aud its authority to do 90 cannot