The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1880-03-13

the other departments In treating tho excep-
lions which arc made ~ unconstitutional,
Cooley on Con, Linn. no.
Tho third ground Of objection Is that the
act undertakes 10 provide for tho levy and
collection OF a tax on property without roler-
ence 10 Ia value II this Is true, In n legal
Wow, then, rs has been said In argument
tow, or none, of the taxes imposed upon oo,
equations are constitutional, Taxes levied
upon tho occupations Of merchants, drum
mers, photographers, ship chambers, ped
dloR and many others TINT might be named,
come within tho same oaiegoryi and yet tho
constitution expressly authorizes tho legisla-
tnre IN Impose occupation taxes both upon
natural persons and corporations, other than
municipal, doing any business in this State
and places no Limitation whatever upon tho
power, save 10 require that all occupation
taxes shall be equal md uniform upon the
same class Of subjects within tho limits Of
the authority eyying the tax, md no ocon
patton tax shall be levied on pursuits, ngri-
cultural or mechanical, Cons art. viii, seo-
tions |, 9 Tho right TO levy m oceupa.
ton tax on retail dealers Is therefore beyond
question, and II only remains 10 DO Nscer-
tanned " the Tux In question 10 IN occupation
tax. From the authorities this seems 10 DO
equally rs clear Judge Cooley, in his work
ON taxation says; "Ihe methods In which
business shall be taxed are also In tho legis-
lativo discretion, The taxes which are nost
customary arei |. On the privilege Of carry
ing on tho business. .. On the amount of
business done, 3, On tho gross profits OF
the business. 4, On the net profits orprolts
divided. But the TAX may DO measured by
other standards, prescribed for tho purpose,
AS well as by these. II Is no
conclusive objection to any such Tux that IL
duplicates tho burden to the person who pays
1t. To tax merchant upon his stocks W.
property, and also upon his gross sales, may
seem burdensomc, but is not unconstitutional
when not expressly forbidden by the consti-
tuition. The two taxes are not IDENTICAL
and though they my operate unjustly in
particular cascs, they are supposed TO be
and just" Cooley ON Taxation, p, 1874, Ia
n recent well considered case in Tennessee,
involving the power Of the Legislature TO inn
pose an nd valorem tax upon the stock in
trade Of II merchant, and also I'M occupation
Tux equal in amount To tho adyalorem tax,
Chief Justice Nichols in announcing the
opinion of tho court sustaining the constitu-
tionality of thea act. commends the doctrine in
Brown VS. Maryland, az Wheat, AZ and do
duces clearly the distinction between the
doctrine Of that and subsequent cases in the
same line, and cases like this Mt bar In the
course Of an elaborate and able opinion this
language occurs: "But il is contcnded that
rs an ad vslorem tax was assessed on plain.
til's merchandise, equal to the tax on other
property, no additional tax could be assessed
against him us merchant. Under the con-
struction we have placed upon the Constitu
ton the Legislature had the power 10 de.
terminc the amount of tax to be assessed up
on tho plaintiff Us merchant, md also to de-
termine the manner or mode in which the TAX
should DO assessed and collected. II was
therefore for the Legislature to provide that
the amount assessed upon the plalntiilshould
be pscertained by requiring m amount equal
to the nd valorem tax to be assessed against
him rs merchant. 1t is the manner or mode
prescribed for assessing the tax on merchants,
and falls clearly within the discretion con-
ferred upon the Legislature, both as to the
amount of the tax and the manner of ascer-
tanning and assessing il. Il The fact
assumed by the court in Brown VS.. Mary
''n ~i'y ~ ~ ~ ,,'o.sI.n, ,, Lo
pLosu,a' EaS,, Sl"v v',' h1 'r nnds
i;coUse tax which no is roovired ~ mnv nnJ
a"'. " .1.ii; q i"J' ~
III .na' way 'no s1'" Is'u" y, n,' Spou,
h"y w ot" '1 t T s ,nV NY nsto"I
peuonu' s"Ta?,I, ~, .,i' S"I' W., i.s'o"u
q. Ia L"yer' ~ :, uuehusu so ~ ln9 S S9we
.'i"l no n"s w le,'Llou.So na, ~ W. u "'ui
, n,S own SAAes W. 'Ho p',I1 " n,' ouu' ''i
'no inutTn",,S nh' Nv ~" .,'' ueen vINvo
noi,,nny nuSn n.y., ,n 'na a"oSo muo,'
MAes uopenuln Hn. 'T h ra'"o =, 'no, p,opo,
lh 'as way ,to 1sS p'ei, "i ,poi'a md ""
ci"l usvnI y. tne at II, "ssosSl INV o9,
lecss .aAes iro vne co"ss',Ls t ~ MS soo",'
l. was toaso . W ,esu'nv su"s " WIS Vn
account oi :no poeu',"' n"'ulv y, n's JSvuP"
llo!i' anu hls po"er W pto.eu: n'.,iseii ilIn'
UNJUST laA"uon, py o.s'l t, sne ourts''
among ms customers 1ln' t.u oI trainers vi 'nc
oohs'tusloh ol 1901, unu Vi io'V' oAptessy
suoJec'ce inc iierchahI 70 she ualres'ri Ie
power Vi vuAa'eoI ~ ~ In1 80 Eos'S'"suro; lo1",
ki XII vs.. Ewiil, o Ilcisn, ,0l ~ suq' oeo a'so'
WalGot1 vs. Ieople II MICH, ooi Hlr"uo w. ",
Gordon, - o mrN D o-oi lloaEson W, M or, ~,
! ioa 1nh owl Durun ", mayor, o.vi - G",
ooo' nolier vs. i Se. .h 10 ua,' 100 VuF
conclus'oh Is .laV tio 'aA ~ 9ues'lon Is WA
upon the business "a roe'ii aeu1cr III sp'ri.u,
gus, tii'ous' VI mar nquoisi ",Io not mN
upon 'he properly o'nployeu Ill such ouS'-