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

aOuS, anu universally uHucT SUCH pro-
visions. equality and uniformity in tax
alton must be aimed at and not ex-
pressly departed from. TAX laws
should be framed with view to appor-
tioning the burden of government so
that each person enjoying government
| protection shall be required TO contri-
butte so much as is his reasonable pro-
portion. and no more"
! Cooley on Tax, p. I2l.
| Newark vs.. State, Is Am. l.. Reg,
! (1S74) AL.
Ex-Bank Columbus VS.. Hines, Ohio,
! ST., 1.
Pine Grove VS.. Talcott, Ohio, 10 Wall,
675.
Woodbridge VS.. Detroit, Michigan,
| 301. Per Christiancy J.
Lexington VS. McQuillan's Heirs, 8
! Dana, SIS.
Railroad cases, 10 Fed. Rep, 734.
/ People VS.. Weaver, 100 United States,
$50.
The Legislature must decide when and
how and for what public purposes, a
tax shall be levied, and must select The
subjects of taxation.
Cooley on Tax. 125.
| Lexington VS.. McQuillan's Heirs,
Supra.
! L
Butin selecting the subjects, the prin-
ciple of equality must be recognized. /,
A license fee. whether construed as
solely revenue measure, or for reg
ulation of the business also, must be
uniform, so as TO apply to all persons
engaged in that business within the
local jurisdiction which imposes and
receives the tax.
! Brewer B. Co. VS.. Brewer, 81 Me. "a.
R.R. tax cases 13, Fed. r. 1873, 734, TAI
Lexington VS.. McQuillan's, Hem.
Supra.
State VS., Readington, SO n. J. L. 70.
Exchange Blk. VS.. Heirs, 3 Ohio st. 1.
Evansville Bank VS. Britton, 1O5 U. s.
AS was said by Judge Field in the R.
r. tax cases: Taxation on business in
the form of licenses may vary ac-
cording to the calling or occupation
licensed, and the extent OF the business
transacted, but even then there must
be uniformity with respect to the same
calling or occupation in the same To-
cality." p. 437. He also said: "What
is called for under a Constitutional pro-
vision requiring equality and uniform
ity in the taxation of property must be
equally called for by the Fourteenth
Amendment" p. 734. This general
principle is fundamental law. "What-
ever the State may do it cannot deprive
anyone within its jurisdiction of the
equal protection of the laws. And by
equal protection of the laws is meant
equal security under them to every one
on similar terms-in his life. his liberty
his property and in the pursuit of hap
piness. 1t implies the right OF
each to his exemption from
any greater burden or charges than
such as are equally imposed upon all
others under like circumstances. I'm
equal erGctions IN eUery form or under ana
pretense. are absolutely forbidden. anG
of course unequal taxation, for it is in
that form that offensive burdens are
usually laid"
He stated with appreciation what wa:
held in Lexington VS.. McQuillan' heir:
20 Dana 513) "that though there may bt
discrimination in the subjects of taxa
ton, still persons of the same class, anC
property of the same kind, must gener
ally be subjected alikesto the same com
mon burden" In another part of tn,
sameiopinion he says also: sit (this 14tl
Amendment) does not indeed place any
limit upon the subjects in reference t.
which the States may legislate. 1t doe.
not interfere with their police power
Upon every matter upon which pre-
viously to its adoption they could act
they may. still act. They can legislat'
now, as they always could, to promote
health, good order, and peace in thu
community; to develope their re
sources, increase their industries, anl
advance their prosperity; but it does re
quire that in all such legislation, hostile
and partial discrimination against any
class or person shall be avoided; tina
the State shall impose no create
burdens upon any one than upon other
of the community under like circum
stances, nor deprive any one of right
which others similarly situated are al
lowed 70 enjoy. 1t forbids the State t.
lay is hands more heavily upon on
thanupon another, underlike conditions
1t stands in the Constitution as q per
petual shield against all unequal ant
partial legislation by the States, and thu
injustice which follows from it."
1t was held in this case that denying
the right to a railroad corporation t
deduct from the valuation OF its roaC
the amount of membranes. such de
duction being allowed to natural per
sons. there was q discrimination to thu
ulSduN hultS5S VI tLC COI pOIdIlOl W IlCA
rendered the tax void and that the pro
vision of the State Constitu
ton providing for such discrimination
is also void. The case was decided il
September, 1882. In the following yea
the same views were repeated and re
affirmed in the Santa Clara Railroad
company, Sawyer, 165. The cour
held that the Fourteenth Amendment
in declaring that no State shall deny tt
any person within its jurisdiction thu
equal protection of the law imposes
limitation upon the exercise of all the
powers of the State which can touch tn
individual or his property, includin!
that OF taxation; that this equal pro
lection forbids unequal exactions o
any kind, and among them that of un
equal taxation. The principle is broaC
and unqualified and therefore require!
equality and uniformity in police regu
lations,
1t was held in People VS., Weaver, l0i
I G. S. $50. that section 52l9 OF the
!. Revised Statutes of the United States
providing that State taxation ION thu
shares of any national banking associa
ton shall not be at greater rate thai
is assessed on other moneyed capital IL
the hands OF individual citizens of tn
State, has reference to the whole pro