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


L i oelag classified, and taxed as classed, by
elne5ent rules. All kinds Of property must be
taxed uniformly or be entirely exempt The
UNI. ofhty must be coextensiye with tne terri
SoIy 70 which the tax appl es." The court cites
olIInsn vs. City of ShebJygan. Black, 5l4
When words appear in a constitution author
IAing classification, the decisions state and fed
eral, radically change. To illustrate: The con-
stitution of Iowa, article /. section a proyiIes:
All laws or general nature shall have uni
FORM operation" aud that the general assem-
Oily snail not grant to any citizen or class Of
cttzens privileges or immunitias which
upon the same terms shall not
equally belong to all citizens" In passing
upon the constitutiona1ty OF a statute of Iowa
uhuer TINS language in the case of Chicago,
etc-, railroad company VS.. Iowa, 81 u. s., 1884
the supreme court of the United States held:
Inc statute divides the railroads OF the state
INTO classes, according to business, and estab-
lishes a reasonable maximum rate for each of
the classes 1t operates uniformly on each
class, and that is all the constitution requires"
DECISION IN AN ILLINOIS CASE.
In Estate Railroa Tax Gases" % Z. S. C1O-11,
the point was raised that the statute of the
state OF Illinois was void because it violated
the principle of uniformity and taxed corpora
tons in manner different from that which
governed the taxation of individuals. The Ian
guage OF the constitution of Illinois under con
slderation provided that the tax should be
uniform as TO the class upon which it oper-
ates" The United States supreme court held
that all that the constitution required was that
the rule of taxation as to railroad companies
should be uniform as to all railroad compa-
MES.
In State VS.. State Board of Assessors AS n. j.
Law y. 81 American Rep. 596-7, the provision of
the constitution was; Property shall be as
sessed for taxes under general laws and by uni
form rules and according to its true value"
While the decision of the cause was other
points, the court says: I'VE do not doubt that
under the operation of this constitutional pro-
vision the legislature can classify property for
the purpose Of taxing It,"
Reverting to the provision of the constitution
OF Georgia, it will at once appear that there
are express words authorizing the classification
by the taxing power of the subjects OF taxation.
The language is: "All taxation shall be uniform
upon the same class of subjects, aud ad valorem
on all property subject to be taxed within the
territorial limits of the authority levying the
tax and shall be levied and collected under
general laws" The language, ''all taxation
shall be uniform upon the same class of sub
JectS,h necessarily and inevitably de-
mandS the conclusion that the constitutional
convention recognized that in taxation there
might be more than one class of subjects.
Property is subject to taxation, but there are
different classes of property, notably real prop
erty and personal property, and each of these
classes of property may be class of subjects
OF taxation.
GEORGIA DECISIONS REVIEWED.
The constitution of 1868 provides Taxation
on property shall be ad valorem only and uni
form on all species of property taxed" In the
case OF the city council of Augusta VS.. the Ma
tional Bank OF Augusta, ~ Ga &c., the su-
preme court construed this section and held:
There can be no discrimination in favor of one
species of property which is taxed over another
species of property taxed, but the tax imposed
must be ad valorem, End uniform on all species
of property taxed" 1t may be remarked that
this case really arose because of a dlscrmina-
ton made between subjects of the SANG species
because under the ordinance shares OF toe
respective shareholders in banks were taxed
nnTR md ut aa~ mon zrad
capital were only taxed one-fourth Of per
cent In discussing the case of Warning VS.. the
Mayor and Aldermen of the City OF Savannah,
alluded to in defendants answer, so Ga. 97-8
Judge Jackson says:
From the language of Judge McCay, who was
in the convention that framed the constitution
of 1858 in the Athens case, "a Ca $780, 1t would
seem that he construed it to mean that upon
whatever property a tax is laid, the same shall
be by one uniform rate according to its value
Such is his language, and oy leaving out the
word species, so as to have the sentence not
read upon whatever species of property etc.,
it would seem that his meaning was
plain. So the language Of Chief Justice
Warner in the Augusta case az Ga. 562,
and yet toe Chief Justice meant that each
species of property should be taxed at the
same rate. And by examination of those cases
1t will be sean that the tax complained of was
all a tax personal prOperty-capi
employed differently. So the ruling in that case
really is that the tax upon capital, strictly so
called, invested in banks cannot be greater
than upon that invested in bonds, notes, etc.
The word species must mean something in the
constitution Code, section 501a,) otherwise the
trainers of that instrument would have proba-
bly, said and uniform on all property taxed in
stead of and uniform on all species of property
taxed The true Interpretation of the clause is
doubtful, and in case of doubt it is, perhaps,
besj, as we cannot ascertain the precise in
equality in this case, to give the benefit OF the
doubt to the taxing power"
The of bnA council of AnOnSfa
the National Bank of Augusta, AZ Ga 562, was
decided in 1873; that of Warning VS.. Savannah,
20 Ga. 93, was decided in 1878.
AFFIDAvIrs OF MEssRs. GuERARD AND LAYTON.
When the constitutional convention met in
July, 1877, the doubt existed as TO the proper
judicial determination of this constitutional
question. 1t was OF unspeakable importance to
the interest OF the city of Savannah to have
this matter finally determined SO that its con-
sistent policy in taxation could be carried out
under constitutional sanctions. The First dis
trict was represented, among other distin guished
gentlemen, by Hon. A. r. Lawton aud Hon.
John NJ. Guerard in that convention. Mr.
Guerard in his affidavit says:
The constitution of 1858, in Art. T. Sec. %,
declares that taxation on property shall be ad
valorem only, and uniform on all species of
property taxed Doubts arose about the power
under this language to fix rates of taxation
which Disseminated between different species
of property and as capital was likely to be re-
PEELED from community by a tax upon it uni
form with that levied upon land, the language
of the constitution OF 1877 was changed to
avoid such danger, and it was provided that all
taxation shall be uniform upon the same class
of subjects, and ad valorem on ali property sub
ject to be taxed The addition of the words
upon the same class Of subjects was intended
TO divide the subjects of taxation into classes
and to distinguish such classes from all prop
erty and while requiring uniformity in the tax
upon the subjects composing class to permit
discrimination between classes of subjects. l
was a delegate from Chatham county to the
constitutional convention of 1877 and distinctly
remember that this matter was present
to my thoughts in connection with
the interests of the city of Savannah
when the high rate of taxes levied on land had
not been levied on capital, because OF the latter
being transient and easily removed TO places
where it is less burdened, and it was therefore
important to leave no doubt on this point in the
fundamental law, and to make clear the power
to discriminate between classes of subjects of
taxation. Impressed with this opinion, was
active in bringing about the change mentioned,
and for the purpose mentioned"
Gen. LawJon swears: Upon examining closely
Mr.. Guerard statement as to what occurred IN
the constitutional convention of 1877 touching
uniformity and subjects of taxation, recall an
amendment offered and some discussion on it,
either on the floor of the assembled convention
or in the large committee on revision, in which
Mr. Guerard took part I am quite sure that
the language Of the constitution Of Penn
sylvania on taxation and finance
article Q, section /, was substantially
adopted to authorize the taxing at
upon the same class of subjects IL my mem
DRY serves me there was certainly a general
concurrence in the opinion, among those who
took special interest In the amendment and the