The Weekly Kansas chief. [volume] (Troy, Kan.) 1872-1918, 1877-07-05

second any person desiring TO exercise the Office cali
therefor held that there identity between these
two sections in the subject matter of the license that
the first refers the party who has goods which he is
seeking have sold by auction and tho second the
party by whom the outcry of the sale is to be made
All the Justices concurring.
FRErwELL BAILEY Er
The opinion Of the Court ,cas delivered by Bre~er J.
turns on the validity ordinance of the city Of Troy
a city of the third class, imposing license tax on
and required that es tSs % II Sf
auction license should be obtained and that this Ii
this ordinance is void because contravention Of com
right unreasonable, and in restraint of trade and
think good Express authority given By the statute
tons professions and avocation. including therein
chants of all kinds " and to make clear that it is
ton closes with proviso follows Provided, how
that all scientific and literary lectures
I3O sec That in the absence Of re-
stricton land we have none thereon the Legislature
may authorize municipalities to tax employ well as
property must we think be conceded. Judge Dillon
thus up the authorities These show some
ployments distinguished from property, but the
rect view, it is submitted is this unless specially re.
strained by the constitution the Legislature may provide
for the taxing of occupation trade and may con
fer this power upon municipal corporations Bat
free from danger OF great abuse Hence, ordinances of
this character ought be sustained the au
red billion corp sg note See aiso Citu Of
Lsavenworth Booth, Is Kas s,s Csoy Cosnt Lim
Hs sfS ce Ia ans St. EGus vs. Beat
q No. 1851 st. Louis vs.. Laughlin 40 No.. $50 ; St
Charles Nolle 81 No., las Osborne Mobile a Ala
4sa Bates vs. Mobile 46 Ala I5s Godth waite Mont
somery, so No.. 4s6 Mason lancaster Bush IN VI
400 kinPer vs. Louisville Bush, 500 walcot VS. the
Reop Il Mich e g. K'GD IN ys T;,A Ann arIcr 20 Mich
ton Caplehart Il North Car. l56 Virgins vs. Chica
60, g H. s7si Collinsvile Cole, 70 nj ia: Wright
vs. &c "a ll.S State Gar
Regarded tax, therefore, 1t within the gener
al proposition concerning taxation tina, knows lin
it other than the necessities of the public treasury and
the discretion of the taxing Or perhaps
correctly it may be said in respect to this munic
its invadity The amount Of the city Indebtedness
necessary expenditures Of the municipality. may require
equally high rate Of taxation upon all empoymsats
and all property that however large this might
De s I'M w,sn m th ana neee
could not be said to be unreasonable This seems to
avoid the argument of the learned counsel that such Ii
cense. amounting in single TO 81 500 is
pressive, unreasonable and in restraint Of trade For
while may not be true that city having authority to
collect revenue by license impose any sum- howev
er large as license and thus in effect destroy certain
i%pospr license srsrsd Sad an scca IN nee
amount charged therefor it should appear that the
that there has beeS an to
nate against certain kinds Of business BY casting
whole burden Of taxation upon them But is the amount
charged for license in this be un
reasonable and oppressive To pay 81 500 a year
excessive but notice that this provision for
cities of the third class cities not containing than
2oOO inhabants and that in places Of such small size
permanent auction store is thing almost unheard Of
The only auctions there held are when citizen
closes out his other goods by auction of
one or two days duration. when wandering
chant comes with flourish OF hand bills posters and
other advertisements TO work of stock of goods by
interferes with the business Of the regular merchant and
for neither Is license tax Of ve dollars day apparent
common demand upon circnses and other travelling
flf,nn yyarE
hca destruction Of the business Nor does the prOvs
ion that license taxes shall be at such rate per year as
much per diem The purpose Of that section pre-
sa f hT %ifod se of the the Of 81 and
1t did not compel the Council to exact years license in
efsh case or eve then ms ro@ ne
ness licensed. We forced therefore to the conclu
the ordinance must be held valid With the wisdom or
policy Of such municipal legislation this Court has moth
ton Of each muncpatv The other question inroIres
the relation of the terms auction and auctonesr. The
and auctoneers. The first section reads Before any
person shall proceed to sell at public auction
license for an auction. Sc while the second Is as fol-
% lows Any person desiring to e.ergise the ONCE or
therefor &c" Do these sections reach 70 the
same matter, so that obtaining license under enc b
eeution under eitheri We think not There is clear
distinction between the two. The applies TO the
auction and the other the party who makes the ont
cry. The same party may occupy both positions He
may have goods to sell at auction an he may be his
auctoneer but this is neither neccssary generally
So The rule is for to at - the esman the
tioneer. for others who have the goods TO sell One
breaking up housekeeping advertises his furniture for
sale by auction another desiring 10 close out stock of
goods, does the and each names third party
auctieneer. The latter ir simply the crier, who
makes II brsiness the agent Of others in this
particular Of selling goods His business is that
of an anctioneer and for carrying that business he is
required by the second section 20 have license The
party who has goods to sell and desires to sell them
auction and obtains the services Of the auctoneer there
for Is the party who take the license required
by the first section These considerations dispose the
case. and compel an affrmance Of the judgment
1t Is understood that case No. 6s9 between the same
parties is controlled by the questions. and the
same judgment will be entered in that case.
All the Justices coneurrins.
A true copy. Attest:
A. HAAlMATT Clerk Supreme Court.
BIZ d. A. yALEsIISE, Deputy.