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

state Of Pennsylvania That was adopted in
1873, and the constitution of Georgia in 1871.
PENNSYLVANIA AND GEORGIA CONSTITUTIONS
COMPARED.
Compare the two: Constitution Of Georgia
"An taxation shall be uniform upon the same
class OF subjects, and al valorem on all prop
erty subject to be taxed within the territorial
limits OF the authority levying the tax. and
shall DO levied and collected under general
laws"
Constitution Of Pennsylvania. Article O. Sec
ton l-'Al taxes shall be uniform upon Une
same class of subjects within the territorial
limits of the authority levying the tax. and
shall be levied and collected under general
laws"
There are other close resemblances between
the constitutions, particularly in regard 10 ex-
enptions. We nave not at hand the decisions
Of the supreme court of Pennsylvania upon the
subject previous to 1877. but understand that at
the time OF the meeting of the constitutional
convention of Georgia OF 1877, and when the
language was adopted into the constitution of
Georgia, the same construction had been put
upon il as appears in Commonwealth rs. Della
ware Div. Canal Co, Is Atlantic Rep $500. Ut
may be remarked that no provision of this kind
appeared il the constitution Of Pennsylvania,
1881 The supreme court of Pennsylvania held
in above case:
The new constitution does not withdraw tie
power OF classification from the legislature;
Roup's case Pa. ST. 2l1; Coal Co. vs. Com. az
Pa. st. iO0 Again p. $50" The moment we
cOncede the power TO classify we have disposed
of the question of uniformity: for then all that
IS required by the constitution is that the tax
shall be uniform uDon the members OF the class.
'Roup case, 81. Pa. st. 2l1. classification for
purposes of taxation, as a general rule, Is a mat
ter for the legislature. It Is the uniformity of
taxation according to that classification which
is for the courts"
We thus have the clause of the constitution
of Pennsylvania adopted into the constitution
of Georgia with the Interpretation given to 1t
by the supreme court of the state OF PennSyl
vania, such Interpretation prevailing at the
las .NaaA int EfI
tuition.
In Hill VS.. Higdon Is Ohio St. 24S), 67 Ameri-
can Dec. 295. Rauney G. j.. discussing portion
of the constitution of Ohio, borrowed from the
constitution of New York. says: ut cannot be
supposed that those who borrowed this pro-
vision from the New York constitution were
ignorant of the objects and purposes for which
it there adopted; and it is but fair to pre-
sumo that it was intended to effect the same
purposes and objects here"
In the case of People VS.. Coleman "A Cal. 80
CD merican Decis. $50, the supreme court of
California, discussing the above quoted section
of the constitution of California. borrowed from
the constitution of Texas, held: where
trainers of a constitution borrow provisions
from constitutions of other states which have
received a judicial construction, 1t Is safe TO
assume that they adopted SUCH provisions IN
view of such construction and acquieSced In its
correctness"
THE COURT THINKS THE oBDIN ANcE LEGAL.
For the reasons aforesaid we have no doubt
that the change was made in the constitution or
1877 of the state of Georgia for the purpose OF
allowing the taxing power to classify subjects
of taxation, and that under it uniformity of
taxation upon the class of subjects made ad
valorem is a perfect compliance with the re-
qurements of the constitution. This statement
is made in justice to our own absolute convic-
ton. and Is in accord with the universal opinion
of our bar and the practice of the local taxing
power since the adoption OF the constitution or
1877.
The result of the above opinion is that we
should sustain the constitutionality Of the ordi-
nance of 1889, complained Of and refuse the
injunction. But we are confronted with the
decision of the supreme court of Georgia in the
case of Verdery VS.. the village OF Sunmerville,
Southeastern Rep. 2l3 ct seq. In that case the
village of SdmnerVe levied q tax of one
quarter of / per cent. upon the assessed
value of all real estate IN the village. No tax
by the ordinance or any other was laid on
personal property. The question stated by the
court was, rs gu ordinance which taxes real
estate alone cOnStitutionaif' The supreme
court held (see head-note) THE tax ordinance
of the village of Summerville for the year 1887
imposing tax of one-fourth of per cent
ad valorem upon real property only, is void by
reason of conflict with the constitution in not
laying the tax ad valorem upon all property,
real and personal, subject to be taxed within
the territorial limits OF the authority levylng
the tax"
1t appears that the case in all its features is
totally unlike the case at bar. There the viii
lege of Summerville undertook to exempt all
nance might well have been declared uncousti-
tional under Gilman vs. City Of Shehoygan, 2
Black $40. in the case at bar the city of Sa-
vannah has taxed both real and personal prop
erty, but has classified them as different sub
jects of taxation, making the tax uniform on
each class, and ad valorem. In deciding the
above case the distinguished Chief Justice has
passed on the language Of the consti-
tuition involved in the foregoing opinion, and
expressed views of the section of the constitution
radically different from that opinion.
YIELDING TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION.
It is our duty, under the circumstances, to
yield to the apparent meaning of the decision
in the Verdery case. This opinion has been
written out at the earnest request of counsel.
because they think that the questions involved
should be fully discussed and decided in a case
| like the one at bar, where they appear and are
| necessary for the adjudication of the cause
The opinion is therefore respectfully fled as
| part Of the record, and the order granting the
| INJUNCTION prayed for will be made in pursu-
ance of the principles announced in Verdery VS..
the village of Summervie.