The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1889-12-05
MUST TAX BOTH ALIKE.
REAL ESTATE AND PERSONALLY
AT THE SAME RATE.

The Supreme Courts Decision on the
Method Of Levying Taxes There
Cannot be One Rate on One Species
Of Property and Another Rate on
Another Species.
The decision of Chief Justice Bleckley, of
the state supreme court, which has led to the
proposed reassessment of property in this
city for taxation very thoroughly covers the
ground, and it is claimed by the city that 1t
leaves no loophole for avoiding an ad va
loren taxation.
The decision was on q writ of error from
the superior court of Richmond county.
(Roney, judge,) in the case of Verdsry VS..
the village OF Summerville. Verdery sought
to enJoin the collection Of small tax Fl. ia.
issued against him by the municipality on
his real estate for 1887. The ordinance lev
led tax upon the assessed value of real
estate in the village, but no tax by that or
dinance, or any other, was laid on personal
| property or its value. In rendering the de-
clslon deciding the ordinance void, Justice
Bleekley said:
Is ap ordinance which taxes real estate alone
conStitutionalg Possibly under the constitution
of 1858 taxable properly could be classified by
species, and each species taxed at a different
rate from that imposed on another species.
1 tnere are. II not direct decisions, some in
umations to that effect. (Waring Vs. Savannah
| ~ Ia, w. and the cases there cited.) But that
constitution was altogether different from It's
successor OF 1877, in the clause which pre-,
scribes the rule of taxation. Let the two clauses
| De compared. The former reads thus: Taxa
| ton on property shall be ad valorem only. and
uniform on all species of property taxed This
| language could, by straining it, perhaps be con-
| strped 10 require uniformity between species
| ana species, but only among the various in
aviouAl species or groups Of property belong
| ing to one and the same species Tbs clause
now Of foros is In these words: 'All taxation
| shall be uniform upon the same class Of subjects
ana al valorem on all property subject to be
Taxed within the territorial limits Of the author
| ny leyytng the tax and shah be levied and col
iected under general laws" Here property sub
| Ject to be taxed-the whole of it together and
not as cut or divided into species-is treated as
Immediately follows the declaration that
all taxes shall be uniform upon
the same class of subjects. Property
subject to be taxed is treated as one single
| class, and the only division of it contemplated
or allowable is by territorial lines coiuciding
with the territorial limits of the various authori
ties by which the taxes upon it are levied.
There cannot be this rate on one species OF
property, and that on another, though there
can be different rates for different cities or
villages on all taxable property whatsoever.
| Uniformity is not required between city and
city, ETC., when the levy is for municipal
taxes; but it is required between every mans
property and every other mans property in the
same city or village Another important diff
ference between the two constitutions tends 10
show that property subject to be taxed Is all
70 be taxed alike, when any of it L. taxed
That difference is that the older constitution
did not limit prohibit exemptions but
the younger does. 1t specifies certain property
that may be exempted and then declares that
laws exempting any other shall be void. Thus
the only classification of property, relatively to
taxation, that is made authorized, is into
exempt property, and properly subject to be
taxed. and taxation on all property subject TO
be taxed is required to be ad valorsm that Is
according to value. Once for ALL the constltu-
ton has enumerated the two classes of property
which enumeration the legislature, the courts,
ana the citiDon must recognize, exhaustive
| Property whatever its species is simply exempt
or subject to be taxed. II exempt, it pays moth
ing; II subject the amount It shall pay is
measured by multiplying the fixed rate into the
actual value. The result viii be, in every in
stance, that all persons who own taxable prop
erty OF equal value will pay the same amount
or taxes, aud all who own more than others
will pay more, and all who own less will pay
less. In Gilman vs.. City of Sheboygan, 2
Black, 610 the supreme court of the United
States, besides holding that the levying of taxes
| by city under the authority of a state law is
the exercise Of the taxing power as much as the
taxation of the citizens directly for the support
of the state government, holds, further, that a
| requirement in the constitution that the rule of
| taxation shall be uniform means that all kinds
of property not absolutely exempt must be
taxed alike, by the same standared of valuation
I
extensively with the territory to which it ap-
plies; meaning the territory from which the
given tax, as whole is to be drawn.
Here follow quite a number of Wisconsin
and Ohio cases cited by Mr.. Justice Swayne,
which the MORNING NEWS omits.
By leaving out personally, not only is the
principle Of uniformity as well as the express
Requirements for the inclusion Of all property
subject to be taxed, violated, but the omission
narrows the ordinance into a particular or
| w Ia silt I1fin daolap
that all taxes shall be levied and collected I'M
der general laws. There Is a relative sense in
which mere local law can, with Ineligible
meaning, be called a law Of general obligation.
Ifit acts upon the whole municipal area and upon
all persons and property therein. with the same
comprehensive generality as it would act
throughout the state were it applicable to the
state at large, it is law of general, though
local, operation This generality, as to terri
tory, with full generality as to subject matter
that is, that the tax shall be uniform upon the
, same class of subjects, and ad valore1n on ali
property subject to be taxed, within the given
territory-is the generality which is needful
vision Of the consultation which declares that
laws exempting from taxation any property
other than that which the constitution expressly
enumerates shall be void, By taxing
implication. exempts personally, and the tax
officers, whose functions IL might be to collect
taxes for the municipality, would be compelled
to treat personally as beyond the purview of
. the ordinance. We're the terms OF the ordi-
nance comprehensive enough to embrace all
property OF both kinds, and then. by some
furtherprovisons, one kind were expressly ex-
empted, the later provision might be treated as
void, and the tax on both Kinds collected.
lNevada vs.. Eastabrook, New, 1Ts; People VS..
McCreery, 81 Cal, 432.) But this resource is
, not available in tho present instance. for the
ordinance is no mixture of valid and invalid
material, and consequently offers no oppor-
tunity for saving part by rejecting the bal.
ance. There is no alternative but to treat the
whole Of it as either valid or void. We accord
ingly pronounce it void.
MILLEDGEvILLB, GA, March, 1881.