Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-03-10
.sassoxsxxMPr.

IL Arc mot Exempt fr4R Personal Taxes.
81 JUDGE BRll nled hiS decision yesterday A
the case of H. NJ. Rice, county treasures
against Charles 8. Bunker. 1t was test case,
which was argued as to whether or not the
state militia are exempt from personal tax
alton to the amount OF 5000, but Judge Brill,
IN his decision, decides that they are not.
The case has been closely watched by those
interested, and decision patiently waited.
The discussion is very lengthy, as the case
County Attorney Eagan and e. 8. Chittenden.
The substance and reasons OF the decision are
as follows:
This was an application by the county
treasurer, for the amount OF the personal TAX
assessed for tbs year 1881. The amount
claimed is $751; and costs. The proceedings
are regular The defendant was at the time OF
the levy of the tax, aud ever since has been a
member of uniformed volunteer militia COM
psny organized under the laws of the state
Unless this fact constitutes defense, 1t is
conceded that the application for judgment
be granted. Section three of chapter
twenty-five of the general laws Of
1870 as amended of chapter IL OF the general
laws of 1871, after empowering the governor
| to authorize the formation nd organization
of uniformed militia companies provides as
follows, and the person so organized and uni
formed shall be exempt from serving as jul
rors, from labor on the highways and from
personal taxes, to the amount Of $500. The
defendant claims that by virtue of the provis-
| ion he is exempted from the judgment
of this tax. The meaning OF this phrase
| "personal taxation" to the amount of two
| hundred dollars, may not not be entirely clear.
| Personal taxation strictly is taxation of the
person direct, without regard to property, a
capltation or poll tax.
But that is not the sense in which the term
| is here used, is manifested from a comparison
| of the language with that used before the
| amendment of 1871, and also by considera-
| ton of the fact that taxation by the poll has
l existed in this state only TO a limited extent
| and in mere nominal amounts. In certain
sense all direct taxation of personal property,
the property being the standard
only by which the amount OF
tax ia assessed. In this and
generally 1 think taxes levied
upon the real estate cannot be enforced against
1 the person, but are collectable only out Of the
land itself, The statutes of this state relating
to taxation, nowhere, as far as have discov.
| cred, use the term personal tax or personal
taxation. The tax assessed upon the basis
of the ownership of personal property is
usually referred to in the statute as the per.
sonal property tax, and the statutes in
stead of providing in term, that the
owner of personal property shall be taxed
that taxes shall be LEVIED on personal prop
erty, etc. But this statute makes the owner
personally liable for the enforcement of thai
liability by judgement and execution, and
| such taxes are in fact as well as in common
parlauce, personal taxes. And there can be
but little doubt that the statute intends to
specify the amount OF tax from the
1 - ~ ho G
10 be exempted and not the amount
of property which shall be deducted in fixing
the basis upon which the amount Of the tai
shall be calculated. It is upon the construc
ton of the statute only which the county at
torney conceded correct. that the defendant
can resist the payment of tax claimed. As
suming that this is the correct Interpretation
of the provision, the county attorney claim!
that the provision is in conflict with section
of article of the constitution OF the statute
which so far as is material here reads as fol
lows: Laws shall be passed taxing all moneys
credits, investments in bonds, stocks, john
stock companies and also all real and persona
property according to its true value IN money
but public burying grounds, public schoo
houses # and personal property
to an amount not exceeding $500 for eact
Individual, by general laws be exempt from
taxation.
In concluding he says there is another view
which was not noticed at the agreement, bu
which seems to dispose of the case. The pro
visien of the statute in question was enacted
as before stated, in the year 1871. In 1874 {
new tax law was passed, which has been sub
stantially in force ever since, and which pro
| vides for the taxation of all real and persona
property, except such as is exempted by the ac
and exemptlng, besides certain public propert,
Of any individual subject to taxation to al
amount not exceeding 500 in value and i
provides (see 1853, law 1874, sec. 100, chapter
II, gen. statutes) that all acts and parts o.
inconsistent Herewith are repealed. see nc
way to avoid the conclusion that by the pro
vision the clause of Oct. Z, 1871, in questio,
was repealed, but have discussed the othe
points, and the case was submitted upon tina
question.
1t follows that the application for judgmeu
| against defendant must be granted. So or
dered.