The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1879-08-28
The DRUMHER,s TAN.

The s.. Louis Republican publishes
the following opinion of prominent
lawyer" Of Texas on the constitution
ality of the drummer's tax. The law
yer's name is not given, and we msy
judge of his ability by his reasoning.
which is as follows:
The restrictions and lin .tions up
on legislative power Cyer the subject,
as contained IN cur constitution OF
1869, were too general and too vsgue,
especially SO to the occupation tax, to
gusrd against an arbitrary discretion
IN the legislation which has been most
Oppressiyely aud gnevouslY tXeI cised.
Aiming 10 bring about an abolition Cf
the occupation TAX as wrong in prII c.
ple-or, If not an abolition, IGen d
wholesome restriction upon the power
of the Legislature 10 impose i'll pre-
pared an srticle on the sulj ct while
our late constitutional convention was
IN session, and submitted To the
Committee op Revenue. The com
mittee reported recommending th,
abolition Of the occupation tax. The
convention refused to abolish this tax,
but adopted my views as to Ies,ric'ln ing
the power of the legislature over the
suhj c., and the clause in our present
Constitution governing the subject was
the result, to.wit: "Ail OcCupstion
taxes shall be Gq1al and u1iform upon
the same class OF subjects within the
limits OF the authority levying the tax. :"
Tue at in question is not in Its lega,
| operation and effect "a Ial and uniform
upon the class in question and is not l
think in conformity with this clause
of the Constitution, but is repugnant
thereto.
In so far as Ibis tax is made payable
to the Comptroller Of Publ Accounts
ard not TO the officer designated in
the Constitution as the collector of
taxes, the act is inoper alive sl1 in
capable Of b ing enforced, ana, wrong
in principle, ought not 10 be vOlun-
tarily complied with.
Tue Comptroller by his circular of
July 21 ruled that drummers for manu-
featuring houses were exempt from
this tax; and this because of the con-
stitutional clause that ''persOns en-
gagged in mechanical and agricultural
pursuits shall meyer be required to pay
an occupation tax"
Under the advice of the Assistant
Attorney General that "this tax is q
personal tex and not a tax upon indus
trial art" the Comptroller, by his cir
cular OF August 5, revoked his instruo-
tions OF Ju'y 81, above mentioned, ard
ruled that drummers OF msnufac' uriDg
houses are liable to this TAX.
That this advice of the Assls' n 1T At
torney General and the Iuiing OF e
Comptroller under it is erroneous there
Is no quettioD.
There is no pretense that mlnufac-
turers of this State, who sell their own
manufactures, have been liable to an
occupation tax. On the contrary they
have been expressly ext tmptel by law
and have been so regarded and treated
by our Supreme Court in cases in my
own practice.
The class engaged IN the sale of
| merGhan disc, who have been made
subject to an occupation tax, Is defined
by our tax laws to be these who buy
and sell, not those who manufacture
and sell goods, wares and merchandise.
To tax non.resldent manufacturers
and exempt resident manufacturers
would be a regulation of commerce and
a violation of the Constitution of the
United States, as has been held in nu
merous cases.