The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-04-14

regulations are applied to other vendors
of the same kind of wine. Neither does
that circumstance constitute any
/ ground for exemption from the
revenue exaction required of all other
vendors of the pure juice of the
grape and other wines. And since the
| law makes no distinction between deal
ers, founded upon the kind of liquor,
it is an invidious exemption, and the
motive is too obvious to need comment.
But q more serious inequality
or exemption is provided for. We
mention:
3. The act exempts all the manxfse-
turers and vendors in all cities. None
of them is required 10 pay anything
into the county treasury.
If this act Is valid the Legislature has
the power to relieve the dealers in in
toxicating liquors in cities from bearing
any share of the county burdens, and
thus to exenerate them by imposing
those burdens wholly on the same class
OF dealers who live outside of the cities.
This act may have that effect. The eX-
tent OF the discrimination may add to
the practical importance of the argu-
ment, but 1t does not increase its iu-
rldlcal weight. Every dollar received
into the county treasury from this
source dlminisheS to the same amount
the necessity for direct taxation. The
persons who make contributions TO the
revenue of the county under this act
are required, nevertheless, TO contrib
ute by the same rates as the other
dealer who was favored under this act
to make up any deficiency. This Ine-
quality is in no degree excused by the
provision requiring the city dealers to
pay into the city treasury. No person
can claim any exemption from county
and Territorial burdens because he
pays city tax, or has been compelled
to contribute to its reYeLues. lad
this act required all dealers in the
county to obtain a county license on
equal terms, the city under its charter
might impose another tax on such as
did business within its limits, and this
act might have provided for such double
or cumulative taxation or regulation.
What would be thought of d revenue
law which exempted all the property
of the city from taxation for the coun-
ty expenSes2 or exempted it from
some certain or contingent part?
1t cannot be claimed that the tax payer
of the city and country would under
such laws have equal protection OF the
laws, nor that no greater burden was
imposed on the rural tax payer than on
him who had the privileges and distinc-
ton of living in town.
What a tax payer in the city is
obliged to pay into its treasury, is paid
and required to be paid Tor his NUM-
cipal advantages, and merely to dis
charge his duty to the municipality. 1t
is never taken into account in fixing
his rate of county and Territorial
taxes. These are exacted from him in
, common with all other tax payers of
Il tho lorOar favinO 1iSfriof ic 40
} much bound to pay mis- part Of
county charges and Territorial leYies
as though he were not subject to any
eXactions of a more local nature. He
: might as well ask to be excused from
bearing his equal share of county bur-
dens, because he has an expensive fam
lily, or any other collateral liability or
burden.
This inequality and want of uniform
ity, appears onithe face of the act. Its
! ordinary and inevitable effect is to pro-
duce that inequality. 1t can have no
other effect.
5 A part of q general class to all of
: whom this act applies. is required to
pay certain amounts into the county
: treasury, for the benefit and to the
credit of all, and the other part is ex-
cused from paying anything except
l its ratable part with all tax
payers to make up the deficiency.
, This is not equality. This
is not allowing every person equa
| protection of the laws, nor equal ex-
: emption from burdens. The hand of
the local government is laid heavier on
5 one part of the manufacturers and
dealers than others.
2 The Supreme Court of the United
= States have said that "in whatever
, language statute may be framed, its
2 purpose must be determined by / Is
l natural and reasonable effect"
} Henderson VS.. Mayor, 95 U. S. 26S.
: r. r. VS.. Huson. 90 U. S. Az.
In Commonwealth VS.. H. M. Co. IL
2 Allen 301 the Supreme Court of Massa-
: chusetts say: ''If the practical opera
e ton and effect of an assessment, author
| lied by an act of the LEGISLATURE, would
2 be to levy tax on the property of GER
l tain individuals or corporations, from
7 which all others were exempt,
so as to throw on particu-
!, lar class a disporportionate share
of the burden of raising money for pub
g lie purposes without any equivalent
benefit, it would be the duty of the
court to declare it an unauthorized act OF
legislative power, irrespective OF the
particular form in which the assessment
or tax might be imposed The validity
of the act would depend upon the sub
: stantial nature and operation of its
: provisions, and not on any formal Ian
: guage in which they were expressed, or
on the mode in which they were TO be
carried into effect"
The supreme court of New Hamp-
shire say: IAN unequal division Of
public expense would be transfer OF
private property from its owner, with
r out his consent and without compensa-
ton, to another person, for no purpose
2 of public benefit. And such an act of
violence, not being public belligerent
; coniscation. would not be law, nor the
enactment or enforcement of law"
? State VS.. Express Co., GO n. H., 255.
) Mr.. ]. L. Rawlins was speaking for
} the county when the hour of adjourn
ment arrived