Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1889-06-14
County Taxes are Not to be Used for
the Improvement of Town Property.

LIST of May last, respecting county taxes APP
portioned to corporate towns by the Coun.
ty Commissioners from the levy of taxes
upon town property:
| The Act of 1888, Oh. 244 provided that
the County Commissioners of Prince Georges
county should pay to the Commissio ners
Of Laurel the amount of tax levied or taxed
upon the real property within the limits
| Of Laurel, to be used by the Commission
ers of Laurel for the repair aud improv ement
OF the streets and roads within the limits Of
the said town and for such other Improve
menls AS the Commissioners of Laurel shou Id
deem proper This act is in violation of the
18th Article of the Bill OF Rights, which re-
quires equal contribution tor the support of
the government, in that IL diverts moneys
from county purposes aud applies them to OBJ
jects chosen by the County Comm issioners
thus imposing the county expenses upon
other portions of the county
The second section %! the Act of 1888, CHI.
244, provides, 'that the County Commission
ers OF Prince Georges county shall authorize
and direct the treasurer of said county TO pay,
from time to time, To the Commissioners OF
Laurel, the amount of the tax levied or taxed
upon the real property within the limits
oil SAID town, to Toe appropriated and used by
said Commissioners OF Laurel for the repair
aud Improvement of the streets and roads
within the limits of the said town, and for
such other impr vements as the said Commits
soners OF Laurel shall deem proper" The
Act was approved on the 4th day of April,
1888, aud became immediately operative.
The Commissioners of Laurel demanded of
the Couaty Comm ssioners the execution OF
the law in favor OF the town but the County
commissioners refused to order the treasurer
10 pay the tax levied on the real estate for the
year 1888 TO the Commissioners OF Laurel
and they applied to the Circuit Court for II
mandamus compelling the County Commits
soners TO comply with the provisions of the
statute. mandamus was ordered, and from
that order appeal was taken.
The County Commissioners contend that
the Act OF Assembly is invalid LIST because
it is in violation of the 10Th Article OF the
Bill OF Rights, which requires equal contribu-
ton for support OF the government according
to the actual worth of the taxpayer; End be-
cause il is in violation OF section 30 of Arti
Gle OF the Constitution in relation to the
litle OF Acts Of Assembly, and thirdly because,
If the ACT is valid, il is not in terms retroac-
tive, and was not intended to apply to the
year 1888, for which the levy was made, be-
fore the act went into effect, for the benefit OF
the creditors OF the county. The view we take
of the law will require us to consider only the
first objection made to it,
The appellees contend that this court has
decided the main question involved in this
appeal, in County Commissioners of Prince
Georges coJnty vs.. The Commissioners of
Laurel, 81 Md. 46l, wherein the Act of 1880,
ch LA was under consideration but that
view cannot be sustained. The cases are en-
tirey dissimilar. The statutes are not alike.
The Act Of 1880, CHI, la directed the taxes
levied for road purposes on the real estate in
the town OF Laurel 10 be paid to its commits
soners for the purpose of keeping up and inn
~ .f
the town. In SO far rs that act was chal-
lenged in the Case in 5lst Maryland, for re-
pugnaney to the 18th article OF the Bill of
Rights, this court did say it was not obnoxi-
Gus to that objection because it only took the
road tax levied on the real estate of town, and
applied it to particular roads OF the public
in which all had an interest, although whit
in the town. 1t was applied as road tax bu-
upon particular roads OF the county. II was
moi necessary 10 the decision OF that case to
so deermiue for the law was stricken down
for repugnancy 10 II later statute Introducing
new scheme and policy with respect to the
public roads of that county. II this case rre-
scented no other question than was involved
IN the constitutional question therein Incl
denlally aud unnecessarily passed upon, we
might think il best TO adhere TO the opinion
there expressed; but the exigencies of this
case do not require us to review that decis-
under consideration is much more sweeping
in its operations and presents a very different
| question. 1t takes not only the road tax bni
alb the taxes levied on the real estate In the
/ town OF Laurel, and applies them not solely
| 10 the roads, rs was done by the act of 1880,
but 10 any other desirable imprOv in the
| town which the town commissioners might
decide proper. The net is sufficiently broad
IN It's language 10 include the State taxes
"a IN
Ing Words in the statute; but the counsel OF
the town concedes that the State taxes cannot
be so APPROPRIATED. II we could regard the
act as constitutional, SO far Ms the county
taxes named are concerned, and could con-
slider the State taxes MS not having been in
| tended by the Legislature, TO be so included
In ITS directions, the order enforcing the law
should unequivocally except the State taxes
from its operation. The order granting the
mandamus and appealed from, however,
makes no such restriction. Had such restric-
| lion been made the order, still, in our opin-
ion, would not have been mnintainable; for
we are nil Of opinion that the law is equally
unconstitutional 80 tar rs it proposes TO affect
the county levy. 1t appropriates TO the uses
of the town oil Laurel not the road tax only for
road purposes, AS was done by the act of 1888,
CHI IA, but all the taxes levied upon the real
estate OF the Town OF Laurel, for county pur-
poses. II takes the tax levied for the main
| tainance Of the courts, of the almsh0use, OF
the Jail, OF the public schools, for building
bridges, and all other expenses incident to
the cOunty's corporate existence, which comes
| from the assessable real estate within the cor
porate limits Of Laurel, and applies II to the
maintenance of the roads OF Laurel and 'such
other improvements as the commissioners shall
deem proper" II the commissioners OF the
town should think the introduction OF gas,
electrical light, or water works desirable i'm
proyements, the taxes thus appropriated could
he used 10 crafty such desires II is too
plain for argument that such legislation can
not be sustained. 1t is practically exempting
the owners Of real estate in Laurel, from con-
tribution pro hnto, 10 the necessary expenses
| OF the county government. IL il be cOmpe-
tent 10 take the taxes levied upon the real
estate in the town for such purposes, all taxes
levied on the personal property within the
town limits could be taken for the same OBJ
| jecl, and thus the citizens of Laurel would, In
fact, be relieved from contributing farihing
to the support of the county government and
the whole county expenses would be thrown
on those who live 10 rural districts; and the
rural districts would be indirectly supporting
II corporation which gave them no protection
or advantages. II II is permissible for one
town il would be lawful for all the villages
I which may exist in the county, and thus
very large Increase OF taxation might be made
necessary for the support OF the county gov
eminent, and no part OF the increased taxa
ton would be contributed by the towns. In
the extent that the general taxes on real es-
tate within the town of Laurel are Withdrawn
from the public treasury and applied 10 the
town OF Laurel for roads aud such purposes
of improvements as its authorities may decide
proper il is too plain for discussion, that the
citizens OF the town are relieved from sharing
the expenses Of the county, while enjoying all
the benefits OF county government. This is
in plain violation Of the Art. ID of the Bill Of
Rights.
Order reversed and petition dismissed.
A Grand Open-A Concert and Festival
will he given in the grove in front of the