The Russellville Democrat., 1882-04-13

ys. Okely, Wheat, 235; Cooley on Const. Lim., page 43S, ct seq. Ses also note p on page 40, Cooley Const. Linn.
 Judge Cooley, in this same work defining the term, Claw of the land, says: "General rules may some tunes be as obnoxious as special, il they operate to deprive an individ- ual citizen of vested rights. While every man has right to require that his own controversies shall be judged by the same rules which are applied in the controversies of his neighbors, the whole community is also entitled, at all times, to de. mand the protection of the ancient principles which shield private rights against arbitrary interference may be under rule impartial in it's oper ation. It is not the partial nature oi the rule so much as its, arbitrary and unusual character that condemns it as unknown to the law of the land" '" Page 440)
 The same learned author further | (page 442) acknowledging the pow CT of the state, under the right of eminent domain and of taxation. to diyest individuals of their property against their will and by someN hat summary proceedings, for the sup port of the government. says: But there IS no rule or principle known to our system, under which private property can be taken from one per. son and transferred to another, for the private use and benefit of such E0ther person, whether by general law or special enactment. The pur- pose must be public, and must have reference to the needs or convenicn- ces of the public. No reason of gen sral public policy will be sufficient, it seems, to validate such transfers when they operate upon existing vested rights" On page 443, he says: "The chief restriction upon this class of legislation is that vest ed rights must not be disturbed; but in it's application as q shield of pro. tion, the term vested rights is not used in any narrow or technical sense, or as importing a power of legal control merely, but rather i'm plying " stea interest which it is right and equitable that the govern men: should recognize and protect, and of winch the individual could not be deprived of al bitrarly with out injustice"
 At the time the land involved in this proceeding was assessed for tax ation, and when the tax books were in the hands of the collector of taxes for Pulaski county, accompanied by warrant to collect the taxes due for the year 1878, the law then in force required the lands returned de- linquent for non. n.payment of taxes, to be sold at public sale to the bid der who would offer to pay the taxes, penalty and costs for the least sub division of any tract where this sub division should be laid off "which does not include the improvements, if any, if it can be avoided
 Acts of March, 9, 1877. Pam phlet acts, p. B. This act eff March 1877, requiring public sale of de- linquent lands, was part ofa system of legislation under our revenue laws which had been maintained from the beginning of the state govern mont, and it was . feature ia the revenue laws of the territory or Ark ansas, and the act of March l4, 1878, is the first time this part of the sys- tenn is attempted to be departed from. In all the states in this un ion, the pubic sale of lands for the payment of delinquent taxes is part of their system, and no state, so far as I am able to find, has attempted to change this system by reserting to a private sale of delinquent lands be. fore they are forfeited. The long adopted system of selling these de linquent lands at public sale IS an ''immemorial usage" and has become a part of the claw of the land" The act of March IA, 1879, which was passed few weeks before the time expired for the payment of the tax es of 1878, so far as it gives power to the clerk of the county to sell ab- solutely the land of the delinquent tax payer. to "any person whatso- soever," is in violation of section 2l, article ,, of our state constitution.
 The right to have his land sold publicly after notice, for the least subdivision, that any person will buy, for the taxes, penalty and costs, "which does not include the improve ments, if any, if It can be avoided" ," is "vested interest" if not vest ed right technically speaking. It is "prlviIege" which section 2l ar ticle ,, of the constitution plotec.s.
 I have serious doubts whether, un der the "power of taxauon," the state can take the land of q delin- quent tax. payer, and deprive him of his title and possession without pub lie sale. (See Cooley on Taxation, p. 339.) The unlimited "power of taxation" is conceded on account of state necessity, but when the state, in the exercise of this power, at tempts to do what is not necessary f,,. ,la ,Nurpooa nF thic nOuar nn1 m