Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1876-06-05

The Legislators has, in obedience to thii
authority. delegated 10 the county court,
the authority to levy and collect take.
for county purposes, and among thest
for school and railroad purposes. Code
IS. $40, 1850. 1t is clear then that the
law which governs the levy and collec
ton of privilege taxes is at the discretion
of the Legislature, and having such dis.
erection, it was clearly competent tor the
Legislature to impose upon the county
courts the restrictions contained in the
statute on which the plaintiff relies in
this case. Ii will be seen that the stat.
ute in question provides for absolute
equality aud uniformity in the rate of
taxes upon all manner of privileges, so
that the percentage of tie same,
as compared with the State tax, shall
be equal and uniform. 1t is said,
in the case of Adams VS.. M. & A. Somer-
vile, that there was good reason for
vesting in the Legislature discretionary
power in the taxation OF privileges upon
a different principle from that which
regulates the taxation Of property, be-
cause it was not intended rs a
source of revenue merely. IL was also
designed as a means of imposing re.
straInts upon the exercise Of certain
privileges whose tendencies were OF q
nature to encourage vice and disorder,
or we're contrary to public policy. 2
Sneed, 1867. The statute now under con-
sideration was not in force at the time
Of the adjudication of the case referred
to. BY this statute, the Legislature has
required the County Courts to ignore all
moral distinctions between the several
privileges created by il, and has placed
them all upon the same footing, demand.
ing for each an absolute equality and
uniformity in ~taxation-and its author.
.ity to do so cannot ne for a moment
questioned, for, as we have already seen,
it has en- absolute and unqualified dis.
erection to tax privileges in such manner
as it may from time TO time direct. 1t
might abrogate entirely the privilege of
ertailing spirituous liquors, or discrimi.
nate against it in such a manner
as to amount to a prohibition
of its exercise; but it has not chosen to
do So but by the act in question, it has
required Of the county courts to classify
among the most favored of the avoea.
tons which are declared to be privileges,
and the county courts are prohibited
from any determinations against it.
There is no doubt but that the county
courts could lawfully assess a tax upon
every privilege as large as the State tax
upon each respective privilege, but in
the percentage Of its assessments as
compared with the State tax, it must,
under this statute, observe the principle
Of equality, uniformity, and the slightest
discrimination against either will be un-
lawful and oppressive. Nor is it a task
OF much difficulty to make such an as
sessment upon privileges upon the prin.
ciple established by the s%tltute; 80 when
the amount of revenue required is as
certained and determined, we are Of
opinion that according to the sched-
ule exhibited in this case the county
has Disseminated unlawiully
the plaintiff to the amount com
planned OF, and the judgment of the
below must be reversed and a
Judgment rendered here in favor of the
plaintiff.