The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1880-01-03

existenc9 enacted for that purpose, 1t Ia tru
the assistant city attorney states II rs an i'm
preston that there 10 an ordinance In exist
= ence imposing license upon vendors OF pro
visions In the public mark It's. but he says ais
The argument for the city is. however, nc
based upon the supposed existence ofany sue
d en 10, dsneon q ea
markets and occupants OF stalls In publ
markets.
pants OF ths public markets are confined d
traffic In particular commodity that the pur
suit OF each IL separate aud distinct; tina
vegetable dealers sell vegetables alone, an
that the trade In feb is again separate aud dis
ttnet; whilst. upon the other, hand, the keeper
9 or private maj kets deal In all OF these things,
The court has only to observe that the testi
mony above quoted does not bear out this the
nry md mgre particularly When CONSIDERS I, ,,
which IL appears that tbs city OF New Orleans Il
the lessor a the public markets. AT times sh'
for stipulated price. aud ibis indiydnal sub
let's the stalls to others ut tnfiff which the ctl
either fixes La advance or re-ety = the tight E
Gus stalls to the different persons doing bust
Now. II Ii b. commended that the testimony
given Ito the effect that the same thing are sold
la the public rs In the private markets. relates
to the. aggregate business done by all the per
sons In the public markets. and conveys the
idea that all these persons together sell the
same things az are sold In the prlvate markets
bg the one indiylduai who keeps IT, the answer
is apparent. when the city Lenses the whole
market TO one person no license Is imposed on
him, aud he may himself occupy q different
stall 70, every possible commodltT which \ m ,.,
occupation different from that of the Keeper oil
private market
fendant In this case as the keeper OF private
market. but for the purpose OF ascertatn'ng
70 what IT. class BE- belongs i T. Totally imma
trade profession or calling does he pursue
The fact that he is taxed upon private market
indicates II anything. that the w..rd private
is used In contradlstinc'1H from public and
yet that distinction, carries with II but this
differences, that Ia the one case the premises
propsrty Of one Individual, and Ia the other it
| IL the private property OF the city OF New Or
leans. In either case the owner Of the property
leases II upon such conditions ard to such per
sons as may be deemed most advantageous to
| himself. In either case there may be one or
many !easees. oil controlled by the conditions
| OF the lease TO which they sub cribe. The pti
vate market. 80 oallad. may be more numer-
ously attended both by vendors. and purchasers
than tue public market aud whether attended
rs The public market Ii the private market. IA
| II suRg SEED, T. situated ~ favored locality
the business will bs good. but this CAGE GER
tainly makes no difference In the tax upoa a
| business. since the equality of such taxation
| Il not made TO depend upon the amount Of
business done. but upon ths business tself. and
| to be equal and uniform under the decisions.
| the tax must be the same throughout The entire
| UsStrlcb upon WNiCh IL is Imposed merchants
upon one street are not required to pay
Ct eater license than those uoon ahother nor
are those who occupy one 1por Of building
required to pay more than those who occupy
another Hoor of the Same building.
i is true the learned and diligent counsel
haa referred the court to Tho case Of Kalineki
VIZ. Grady, as Am. 576, the opinion In which
would seem to indicate that after occupations
are divided Into classes, for the purpose ri tax
alton. each, occupation may be sub divided iu-
ffnitesimally, until. as u logical result. there
will BIS q different license for every individual
engaged IN business. The decision Ia CUES.
ton, upon this point. is not elaborate. and may
Morgan Tits intimated In this case that
the tsntn clause OF section * act No. II of the
II levies a tax OF eighty live dollars upon per-
sons. dealing In distilled liquors Or retailing
sapirituoas liquors on land, VT lie o tax Of only
hfty dollars IL levied on persons following O
ike occupation on steamboats, altho ugh tn, v
may only ply within the limits Of siaale par
I'VE fail to see the force of this proposition
The came amount of tax la levied upon ali
persons pursuing q certain trafIl, In a.
can DO any unjust discrimination In this"
This doctrine IL certainly not Ia conformity
20 that sanctioned by other dee aions Of the
Supreme Court rendered before and since that
quoted, and II accepted rs correct must Ger.
tainly cad TO extraordinary results. There are
probably no two men In the world who CON
duct their business In precisely the same way
the variations are ~ lntinite are the peou-
liarities OF men, Some trade for eash, others
upon credit: some employ women clerks.
others do not; some open their stores at
o'clock and some ut ten minutes past nine
some stores front toward the river. some
toward the lake. while others front both ways
or neither: aud again some establi.hmant.
are actually built over the water. but dn not
.at. as do those which are upon steamboats,.
Cooley on taxation. and AZ exponnded by our
own Supreme Court In other cases seems more
Ia unison and more In conformity to the con-
structions Of other tribunals throughout The |
country. H. quotes from Cooley, .. 12s. Ne fol-
lows:
1T has already been stated that inequality |
does not necessarily follow the restricting Of 4 |
tax to few SUBJECTS only or to single subject.
license tax cannot b. deemed unequal be |
reach oil who follow that"
The case Of Laftyette vs. Cummins." A.
e1s is certainly very much to the point, since In
their case the defendant was one Of ttose who
are omitted from the ordinance here relied on.
The court said:
THE statute OF 1916 imports no prohibition
Of discrimination In the SUBJECTS of taxation.
which Is an administrative subject of great I'm
portanoe, and whore the tax Is laid en- per- ons
certain trades. occupations or professions, we
know Of no instance ID which II has been held
to be other than legal and valid.
1T IL proved that defendant keeps slaugh-
ter house Id Lafayette. where he kills his cattle
for the New Orleans market. His cart is u4ed
and be paws high tax for bis stall where he
sells his meat. But those burdens afford m
ground for the non-payment OF the tax sued
on.
inc decisions Ia the cases or NoldSm1th Va |
CITY, ri An: State vs. Becker. 81 al. hMvs no
application In view Of The facts disclosed here
for We have already seen that the defendant
combines nothing In his business which Ia not
or may not ~ combined by the lessees OF the
public markets or the OCCUPANTS Of the stalls.
In the ense of State We Lathrop. 10 4O2 1t
was held that different license might he i'm
posed upon u foreign CORPORATION doing bust
ness Ia this State from that imposed upon those
created by our own laws, but it WAS not
suggested that as b3tween two companies Of
the latter class different taxes could be i'm
posed. The doetrlns held was that this State
has the rikht to impose any conditions upon
the creatures Of a foreign government hat may
be thought proper aud that CORPORATIONS OF
other States cannot claim the personal and con-
stituuonal rights OF citizens Of the several
States throughout the Union.
In the case of City We. Staiger II An. 6s, tho
court said:
Upon the question OF constitutlonalty it Ia
only neeessaryto repeat what Was said In b case
Of State vs. Rebas-a. An. 305, hat the license
tax In question operates uniformly upon all
persons OF the same class. to wit All keepers
Of coffee- houses. 1t s therefore constitutional"
As the converse of this proposition 1t seems
only necessary to say here that the tax imposed
upon keepers OF markets does not operate uni
formly, since 1t Is not imposed upon all keepers