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

persons, or against particular persons
of the same class, is now prohib-
tied"
A right to equal laws is fundamental in
our American jurisprudence and system
of civil government The Fourteenth
Amendment merely formulates it and
Incorporates it, for perpetual force and
universal recognition, in the federal
constitution.
Second No. Am. L. Rev for 1885.
Police as well as revenue laws must
apply equally to the class of persons
which they concern. The Legislature
may select the subjects of taxation.
When 1t has done so there can be no
discrimination in that class-a tax on
property ut a valuation must extend
to all property. 1t is not vitiated by acct
dental omissions, but is by intention
ally combining it to one class, as real
estate. and thus generating or exempt
ing personal property from the burden.
SO.
Or providing expressly for other
exemptions.
Weeks VS.. Milwaukee, 10 Wis.
263.
Brewer Br. Co. or Brewer 81
Me. g.
1eOple VS.. Barger, bZ Ill. 45Z.
1t is equally fatal if the law, or the
taxing officers, purposely discriminate
in the valuation.
In order to render valid burden
imposed by the Legislature in the
exercise of the power OF taxation
it must be imposed, first,
for public and not a private
purpose. Second, it must be imposed or
laid according to some rule of appor-
tionment; not arbitrarily or by caprice,
but so that the burden may be made to
fall with something like impartiality
upon the persons or property upon
which it justly and equitably should
rest. A State burden is not to be inn
posed upon any smaller territory than
the whole State, nor county burden
upon any territory smaller or greater
than the county Equality in the
imposition of the burden is of the very
essence of the power itself.
People VS.. Salem, 20 Mich. 474.
Ryerson VS.. Utley, 16 ID, 276.
Myrrick VS.. Amhurst, II Allen. 504.
See criticism, 2 No. Am. L. Rev, 1885. }
Knowlton VS.. Rock Co., 8 Wis, 40
Burroughs on Tax, PIP. 68-63-64.
Newark vs.State. IL Am. L. Rev., AL.
Madison VS.. People, So ILL.,, 1856.
Prim VS.. Bellevue, 80 ILL.,, al.
CITY of E. st. Louis VS.. Wehrung, 46
ILL.,, 1872.
Cooley Const. Linn, 49O-492.
On principle and authority the follow
ing propositions cannot be contro-
verted;
Laws which restrict and abridge
common law rights must be general
and operate equally and with uni
formity.
Police regulations must be made SO
as to operate with uniformity and
equality on all persons of the class to
which they apply under similar circum-
stances.
@Revenue for the State must be i'm
posed with a view to the burden being
: borne by all the residents or property
owners therein in some proportional
manner.
1.-The revenue of county or lesser
division can only be imposed on
the persons and property therein, and
; not on part; thereby generating the
5 residue. The residents and property o.
e a county cannot be taxed for the local
: purposes of town or city, nor resident:
/ and property Of city or town alone
: and exceptionally for county purposes
= In other words, it is of the very essence
e of taxation that it should be equal anG
] uniform, and that where the burden is
7 common, there should be a common
} contribution to discharge it.
S State VS.. Readington, SO n. j., L. 20
and other authorities last cited.
: ga State or Territorial tax, and 6
!, county, and town or city tax. may be
e imposed ON one person, where accord
E ing to the foregoing proposition he i:
e taxable in each.
: The Legislature alone can grant the
l power to tax, and it must enact the rule
: by which revenue may be apportIoned
e and cannot delegate to an officer the
7 discretion to fix the amount in each
t individual case. 1t only remains tt
r point out how the act in question VIC
s lates these fundamental principles.
: 1.-The act in question, whether it bt
S a police or revenue act, is invalid FOL
: not prescribing precise and equal rule
D for determining the amount to be paiC
e for license, for leaving it to the County
!. Court to decide on the amount between
: S1O0 and 81 200, without prescribing any
/ rule to guide that discretion.
e City of East st. Louis VS.. Wehrung
46 Illinois, 1872.
2 2-The act exempts one part of thu
, manufacturers and vendors.
Weeks VS.. Milwaukee, 10 Wis. 263.
: g.
e People VS.. Barger, 60 H., 452.
l Laws 1882, Sec, 10, p. 80.
Exemptions cannot be made on any
: ground upon which taxes cannot be i'm
d posed consistently with the require
n ment of equality and uniformity.
r Cody on Tax. AS, note 153.
: Gilman VS.. Cheboygan 2. Black, $40.
This act shows favoritisln to vine
t growers. Why should they be exempted
!, from the police regulations prescribed
0 or the payment of the license fee, rather
e than those who buy the grapes, and ex-
}, press and sell on their premises the pure
: Juice of the grape, or make wine with
e any such other innocuous ingredients
g necessary to produce varieties?
: A particular home industry cannot be
f exempted from taxation, for it increase;
: the taxation of others, amounts to
/ raising revenue for that purpose not
5 public. Nor can police regulations be
: made to apply to part of i class and
not applicable to another
n The first section designates a general