The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-02-21
Tie Tax Ordinance Question.

Judge Falligant is Of the opinion that the
tax ordinance, by authority of which the
/ rate Of taxation in this city was fixed last
year, is constitutional. His opinion Will be
/ found elsew here in this issue. The reason
/ ing by which be reaches his conclusion is
very clear and logical He points out that
in those states in which the rate Of taxation
is the same upon all classes of property, the
constitutions provide that there shall not he
a different rate for different classes of prop
erty, but that in the states in which the
constitutions permit the classifica-
tion of property a uniform rate
of taxation is required only
on all property in each particular class. For
instance, the constitution of Illinois pro
vides that taxation shall be uniform upon
the class upon which it operates, and when
it was complained that there was discrimi-
ination in favor Of the railroads in that
state, the supreme court of the United
States held that there was no ground for
complaint as long as taxation upon railroad
property was uniform, because railroads
were class of subjects Of taxation.
The provision of the constitution of Geor-
gia relative to taxation is like that of the
constitution of Pennsylvania, both provid-
ing that ''all taxation shall be uniform on
the same class of subjects. The supreme
court of Pennsylvania has held that under
the constitution Of that state the subjects of
taxation may be divided into classes, and
that the rate of taxation for one class NAV
be different from that of another. The
constitution of Pennsylvania was adopted
in 1873, and that of Georgia in 1877, and it
is certain that the taxing provision in the
constitution IF the latter state was adopted
from the constitution Of the former.
Judge Falligant holds-and he cites de-
cisions TO sustain his view-that when one
state transfers o provision of the coastitu-
ton of another state to its own constitution,
it accepts the interprets ton of that pro-
vision which prevailed in the state from
whose constitution it was taken. The in
feTeace therefore is that the constitutional
convention of Georgia, when it adopted the
taxing provision of the constitution of
Pennsylvania, understood that the subjects
Of taxation could be separated into classes,
and that the rate Of taxotion upon one class
might be different from tsat upon another.
1t meant only to impose uniform taxation
upop the sane class Of property. This view
is sustained by two eminent members of the
bar of this city, who were members Of the
constitutional convention, one Of whom had
great deal to do with the framing of the
taxing provision of the constitution.
Savannah has made a practice of
separating the subjects of taxation. For
reasons which appeared to her to be wise
she has Disseminated in favor Of personal
property in levying taxes. A recent de-
cisioD of the supreme court. however, has
caused to be raised the question whether
this discrimination is permitted by the con-
shtution.
Judge Falligant's order granting the in
junction in the case in which his opinion
was delivered is not in harmony with his
opinion. Knowing taat the city desired to
carry the case to the supreme court of the
state, be made an order that is in accord
ance with the supreme courts decision,
and which enables the city to take an ap-
peal. From Judge FaIligant's opinion it
would seem as if the supreme court would
find it difficult, if not impossible, to avoid
reversing itself.