, 1876-07-02

To understand the decision of the Supreme
Court upon tile Chicago tax appeals, which
we print this morning, it is necessary to re-
member few facts: In 1872, the State
adopted general revenue lsw, providing the
machinery for the assessment and collection
Of all taxes, State, county, city, and town, by
the State officers. Prior to that general law,
the City of Chicago and other cities had been
collecting taxes under special laws. The
general revenue law Of 1872 went into force
July 1 of that year. The City of Chicago
that year levied taxes under the special law
historically known as Bill 800. and the taxes
for 1872 we're assessed under that law. In
levied under that law. In July, 1874, the
city applied to the County Court for judg-
ment Of sale against the delinquent property
for the taxes of 1873, and, there being q
large number Of contestants, the Court
decided that under Bill 800 he could
find no authority to give such
Judgment in any case where an objec-
ton was fled The city appealed the
case to the Supreme Court, and that Court
sustained Judge WALLACE, holding that there
WIS no authority under Bill 300 to give judg-
mcnt Of sale for taxes. In the meantime
the Legal authorities of the city, by way of
preparing for such decision, wentto Spring
field and obtained IN amendment to Bill 300,
intended and expected by them to obviats
the objections to the original law. Notwith-
standing Judge WA11AcE's decision, the city
levied the taxes for 1874 under Bill 800, and
in July, 1873, asked for judgment of sale
against the delinquent property. The con-
testants in the meantime had increased; they
resisted payment against real property On
which 81: :304, 900 Of taxes were due and un-
paid. Judge WALLACE again decided that
the amendment to the Bill 800 had not cured
its fatal defects, and refused Judgment. The
city appealed, and the decision we print this
morning sustains Judge WALLACE
During 1874, there were earnest appeals
n1ade to the Common Council to abandon the
attempt to assess property and levy taxes
under Bill 300, and resort to the machinery
OF the general law But to do this would
abolish two or three large Offices, including
the expenditure OF over 100000 q
year for salaries, and the Council
refused to do 50. In 1875, after tho
second decision Of Judge WALLACE, it was
with the utmost difficulty that the change
could be obtained. We now have the result.
Had the city in 1874 assessed the property
pnder the State law, instead of under Bill
200, it would have had judgment for this
81, 1904 600 Of taxes on real property. As it
is, the Supreme Court sponges that amount
of taxes out of existence,-a total loss to the
city. That is rather expensive for the luxury
Of keeping Tax Commissioner McGRA1H,
Collector Won Ho1IES, and Assessor some
body else, in Office. In addition to the
$3.50, 900 salaries paid these officers, the city
now loses $l,304, 600 Of taxes On real
property.
The decision is radical one. It declares
that the Revenue law of the State was the
general law. applicable to all cities and
towns. That all other revenue laws were of
necessity special and unconstitutional, be-
cause there could not be two general laws On
the same subject. It declares that the Leg
islature had no authority to enact ''option-
al " laws that general law could not be
followed or not, at the option of the city.
Chicago, therefore, has no option, since the
general law Of 1872 went into force, to fol-
low that Law or any other law in the matter
Of revenue there was and could be but one
law on that subject, aud the city, having dis
regarded the only law in force, the assess-
ment and levy of taxes and the collection Of
taxes under any other law was absolutely
void.
This decision, &s we understand it, OBJ