The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-03-06
1T IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
JUDGE WALKERS OPINION ON TIE
TAKING DISTRICT BUDGET.
He Reviews the Law Governing the
Question and the Decision of the
Supreme Court and Declares the
Budget Constitutional.

consttutionality OF the budget, County
Trustee ]. S. Williams addressed letter
to City Attorney Walker requesting n legal
opinion upon the subject. Judge walkers
reply is herewith submitted in full:
J. J. Williams, County Trustee, City.
Dear sir:--Your note OF this date, asking
my opinion as TO the ccnstitutionaity OF
the Taxing District budget act, passed by
the current sessionof the Legislature is just
received. have not the least doubt as TO
the constitutionality OF the act.
II Is suggested that the act In question Ia
vioative OF the seventeenth section OF the
second article Of the Constitution. which
reads thus: mo bill shall become law
which embraces more than one subject.
that subject TO be expressed in tho title"
The title OF the present budget law is IAN
act TO levy and collect taxes Tor the Taxing
District OF Shelby County, Tenn, for the
two years 1889 and 1890" BY tho first
section OF the act, an annual tax OF 81 50
on the 500 OF valuation In the eight orig
inal wards, and Sl.67 on the 500 Of valu-
alton in the Ninth and Tenth Wards is
levied for the two named years. by the
second, third and fourth sections, the ag.
gregaie tax levy Is distributed among the
several departments OF the municipal gov.
eminent, and by the fifth section the gen.
eral laws Of the State for the collection OF
State revenue, are made applicable TO the
collection Of these taxes.
The two possible questions arising out
OF the suggestion OF unconstitutionality
are Cd whether the act embraces more
than one subject, (2) whether that subject
is fairly expressed In the title. The pro-
vision OF the constitution In question has
been repeatedly before tho Supreme Court
OF the Slate-so often in fact that more
than proper space would bo consumed
by reference 10 all the cases. Before re-
icrring TO any OF them, however, II Is
worthy OF note that similar statute has
been passed by every session OF the begis-
laturo since the session OF 1879 which
passed the act creating the Taxing District
OF shelby County. la every one OF these
acts the title has been substantially the
same ~ that OF the act in question. In
1881 the act was entitled: IAN act TO levy
taxes for the use Of the hxing District OF
shelby County Tenn, for the years 1881
and 1882, from January 10 December 81
OF each year" and by the body Of tho act
the tax was levied and apportioned TO the
several departments OF the municipal
government The act OF 1883 was entitled:
" IAN act 10 levy and collect taxes for the
Taxing District Of shelby County Tenn,
for the next two years, lsS3-lSSi." and
the levy was again made aud Apportioned
10 the several departments OF the mu-
nicipal government In the body OF the act.
The act OF 1885 was entitled: Gan act 10
levy and collect taxes for the Taxing Dis
trict Of Shelby County, Tenn, for the next
two ycars, 1885 aud 1885, aud again by
the body OF the act the tax was levied and
appOrii0ned 10 the several departments OF
the municipality. The act Of 1857 was en-
titled: IAN act 10 levy aud collect taxes
for the Taxing District Of Shelby County,
Tenn, for the yoars 1887 aud lSSS;'
and again by the body OF the
act tho tax was levied and appor-
toned To the several departments OF the
city government The title Of the pres.
ent bulge, act Is exactly the same as that
OF every budget act passed since the crca-
ton Of the Taxing District, and tho body
OF the present act, though different some.
what la iorm Ia in substance the same ~
each II the preceding acts. Tho only dit.
ference In form may he best shown by an
example from each OF the acts, rather than
by an effort to state IT, Thus by the act
OF 1887, - cents on the 500 having been
levied by the first section of the act, the
third section provides. "lfo the police de-
partmcut no more than So, OO0,' this dill
ierncc In form running through the body
oi both acts. So that II IA true that not
outstanding the repeated enactment Of
Just such law 10y the four preceding scs.
sions OF the legislature, no ono has
thought heretofore Of even suggesting u
doubt Of it, constitutionality.
The constitutional provision referred {,
first came before our supreme Court In thu
case OF Cannon Va Mathcs, lleisk. 5lg
in which Nicholson. Chief Justice, wh'
had been distinguished member Of tn
Constitutional Convention OF 1870, de
livcrcd the opinion. That opinion settle,
the proposition that "the general purpos
OF this provision II accompliscd when th
Law had but one general object, which
fairly indicated by the title. Tho gcncr
atty Of the title u no objection 10 II =
long as u u not made 20 cover Legislation
incongru0us itself. aud which by no cal
inicndtncni can bc considered NJ having
necessary or proper connection and
was accordingly held that an act Of whiol
the title was; An act IN n
the State tax on property" but which 4
H. body increased the entire state tax u
privilc ~, was not obnoxious 10 this prC
vision Of the constitution.
The next case In which the conslitr
tional provision WIS conspicu0usly bcioI
the court was that of Luehrmann Vs. Tal
ing District oi shelby County, lea ~
Involving the validity OF thu Law crcaiin
the Taxing District. The act was Cnttip
- bill 10 establish Taxing Distdts In III
State, aud To provide the means Of loo
government Tor the same" aud Il VI
held not obnoxious TO this provision Of n
Constitution. although the act granite
municipal franchises 10 the communitii
within the territorial limits Of the Taxir
District, gave 10 the corporation thl
created all the necessary legislative, jud
cial aud police powers Ol an incorpomt,
city. contained specifications OF oiicns
against the corporation OF committed
iis officials, with penalties aud punis
mcnis, aud levied aud Appropriated an a
nual budget tax ioi the two yoau thl
next ensuing.
In the case oi the State * I'll. Gglncs
whilworth. s Lea 5qi, the conclusion "
agnin reached. That any provision II
act directly o. indirectly 90 the subject e
pressed in tie title, having natural 60
neclion Herewith aud not iorclgn thoru
should be- held TO be- embraced In IT," III
Il was consequently ruled that an act en-
lied IAN act ior the more rigid collccti
Of revenue In the body Of which vahu
provisions were made ior the ASSESSING
Il omitted properly, and for cnlnrgIng I
irIsdiction OF justices Of the peace IN I
eases wa not obnoxious TO the cunsii
uonal provision In question. 4
same ruling was substantially repeat
Ia Wilson \. Benton. II lea 81. "A