The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1884-01-23

about twenty-five miles are in San Mateo
county. For the fiscal year 1882 the
state board of equalization assessed the
property of this road at 81, 739,915, or at
the rate of SIG, 800 mile, and apportioned
$414,150 to San Mateo county, according
to the ratio of the mileage in that coun-
ty to the entire mileage of the road in
the state. Upon the amount thus appor-
toned taxes were levied, for the collection
of which the county sued the railroad.
There was mortgage of $4,000 mile on
the entire property of the railroad, but its
property was assessed at its entire value,
independently of the mortgage. Here
was a direct discrimination between
property belonging to railroad and the
property of individuals. The same dis
elimination was also made in favor of
the property of railroad corporations oper-
ated only in one county, and of corporations
of various kinds holding and using prop
erty in more than one county. That is to
say, the property of railroads doing bus
mess in more than one county was as
sessed at its full value, with no deduction
for the mortgage; but the property OF in
dividuals, and of railroads doing business
only in one county, and of corporations of
various kinds, except railroads, holding
and using property in more than one coun-
ty, was assessed at its value, less any
mortgage there might be upon it. This
discrimination the railroad claimed was
unjust aud unlawful. The tax levied on
this unequal assessment was purely a
property tax. The tax levied on the rail-
roads by the Vermont law is on gross re-
ceipts and is in the nature of franchise
tax. In showing that the California con-
stitutjon made an unjust and unlawful
discrimination, denying "the equal pro-
lection of the laws under the fourteenth
amendment, Judge Field explained, what
has been established beyond reasonable
dispute, that uniformity and equality in
taxation do not require that all kinds of
property must be taxed alike, or that if
one kind of business is taxed, every other
kind of business in the state must be
taxed also. Real property, he said, may
be taxed at one rate, personal property at
another rate. Taxation on business in the
form of license may vary according to
calling, or occupation, or extent of business
transacted, but there must be uniformity
of charges with respect to the same calling
or occupation. But these cases of admit
ted variation in the mode and rate of tax
alton, he reasoned, were no answer to the
discrimination complained of in the rail-
road case. If property is taxed, it must
be taxed uniformly. If business is taxed,
all business of the same kind must be
taxed. If license is exacted from liquor
sellers, uniformity and equality does not
demand that the family grocery dealer be
also required to pay a license, but that
every liquor-seller without discrimination
shall be required to pay the license. There
may be discrimination in the subjects of
taxation, but persons of the same class
and property of the same kind must gen.
orally be subjected alike to the same COM
mon burden. This is the tenor of Judge
Fields decision as to uniformity and
equality of taxation. As regards corpora
tions, Cooley on Taxation says that special
rules are generally made. The method of
taxation and what shall be taken as the
measure of the tax are in the discretion
of the legislature. Sometimes the fran
chise is specifically taxed, sometimes the
capital, or capital stock, sometimes the
tangible property, and 80 on. When the
supreme court has decided this case, pre-.
cisely what the law is will appear. Spec
ulations based on Judge Fields opinion
are therefore premature still it is evident
from the general tenor of his opinion and
from the following extract in relation to the
power of state to tax, that, even if he is
sustained, the Vermont law will not fail
cit is undoubtedly true" he says, "that
the power of taxation possessed by the
state may be exercised upon any sub
jet within her jurisdiction and to any
extent not prohibited by the constitution
of the United States. As stated by the
supreme court, it may touch property in
every shape-in its natural condition, in
its manufactured form and in its various
mutations. And the amount of the tax
alton may be determined by the value Of
the property, or its use, or its capacity, o.
its productiveness. 1t may touch bust
ness in the almost infinite forms in which
it is conducted-in professions, in com
merce, in manufactures, and in transpor
tation. Unless restrained by provisions
of the federal constitution, the power O
the state as to the mode, form and extern
of taxation is unlimited, when the sub
jects to which it applies are within he
Jurisdiction.
Question OF Larger Than Party
I.A.