The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-02-21
DECLARED ILLEGAL.
THE TAX ORDINANCE OF 1880 UN-
CONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID.

Judge Feliigant's Opinion in the
Weed Case-Ee Expresses the Con-
viction that the Ordinance is Legal,
but Yields to the Supreme Court
and Decides as in the Verdery Case.
The Record to Go Up on Short
Writ of Error.
In the superior court yesterday morning
Judge Falligant rendered his decision in the
case of ]. D. Weed ct. al vs. the mayor and
aldermen of the city of Savannah, grant
ing temporary injunction, which order
was Immediately taken by P ]. O'Connor,
Esq, counsel for complainants. The decis-
ion, given in full below, thoroughly reviews
the case. The case will now go to the SUI
preme court on a "Short writ Of error.n
Judge Falligant expresses the opin-
ion that the tax ordinance of
1889 is not in violation of the
constitution, as laid down in the Verderv
case, but, yielding to the decision of the SUI
preme court in that case, he grants the
injunction. The decision Of Judge Falli-
giant is considered in one sense a very
strong argument in favor of the validity of
the ordinance, and it is thought will have
weight with the supreme court, which may
reverse itself. The court room was
crowded, and every seat inside the bar was
taken, showing the interest taken in the
case. The decision occupied little more
than an hour in its delivery, and is as fol-
lows:
REVIEWING THE CASE
This cause was heard on petition, answers
and evidence including affadavits upon motion
Tor al interim injunction. The proceedings of
She CONSTITUTIONAL convention of Georgia, 1877,
were offered to show that the debates and pro-
ceedlngs Imperfect as they seem to be), did not
disclose anything in regard to constitutional
questions involved in this cause to throw light
on the final action of the convention. The pc
Cltlon III substance alleges that the tax ordi-
nance Of the city of Savannah for 1889 is I'M
constitutional and void because it discrlminates
IN the manner of taxing real and personal prop
erty in the city of Savannah and is in conflict
with article z. section of the constitution of
io'| OIL the state Of Georgia, which reads as fol-
lows:
"All taxation shall be uniform upon the same
class OF subjects, and ad vaorem on all prop
erty subject to be taxed within the territorial
limits OF the authority levying the tax, and
shall be LEVIED and collected under general
laws"
They show that no taxes can be collected
under said tax ordinance because the mayor and
aldermen of the city of Savannah have imposed
tax OF 21s per centrum per annum upon all
real property in said city, and tax Of only
one-half of per centum upon all personal
property in said city except shares in banks and
banking associations located in said city Of Sa-
Vannah upon which a tax of only three-tenths
of per centum has been imposed, which dis
elimination, they claim, is in violation of said
section of the Georgia constitution.
certain tax execution issued under said or
dlnance was levied upon the property of petit
uoners, which gave rise TO these proceedings.
THE CITY DEFENSE.
The defendants answer, admitting the facts
stated and maintaining the constitutionality of
the tax ordinance of 1889 and the proceedings
Hereunder. They MAINTAIN the method of
taxation also on grounds Of public policy with
which the great bulk of the citizens o. savan-
nan are alleged to be in accord. They say:
The city OF Savannah has been and is so
largely dependent for its prosperity upon it's
commercial interests that it has always been
thought unwise to place on personal property,
particularly bank capital and stock in trade, as
high a rate as the necessities and the large
bonded debt of the city have made it necessary
to put upon real property. Defendant says that
for the year 1877, on account of the tendency of
the Waring case and before its decision by the
supreme court of the state go Ca Rep0 this
defendant taxed real and personal property
alike, but after the said decision this defendant
went back TO its settled policy herein set forth.
This defendant says that the prosperity of the
city suffered and good deal of bank capital
was Withdrawn on account of the passage of
this ordinance for the year 1877. Defendant
respectfully submits that its ordinance for 1889
that assailed by said petition, provides for an
ad valorem taxation upon all property taxed
and for uniform taxation upon the same class
of subjec ~
Among the affidavits are those of Messrs H
M. Conner and John Flannery, showing how a
change in the ordinance increasing the rate of
taxes upon bank capital stock in trade and
other personal property would be highly detri-
mental to the commercial interests of the city
of Savannah. There are also affidavits of Hon.
A. K. Lawton and Hon. John NJ. Guerard, mem
bers of the constitutional convention of 1877,
which will be discussed hereafter.
THE TURNING POINT.
The decision of this cause turns upon the
question whether the city of Savannah can
divide property into classes of subjects and
tax the several classes by a rate uniform as to
the particular class, but ad valorem.
Inc city OF savannah, public corporation,
within its jurisdiction taxes upon the same
principles as does the state, so far as the power
TO tax has been delegated. In this case there
is no question as to the power of the city to
pass the ordinance of 1889, if that ordinance is
not opposed to the above quoted section of the
constitution of &c rgia: The levying of taxes
by public corporation under the authority of
state law, IS the exercise of the taxing power
as much as the taxation of the citizen directly
for the support of the state government. -
Gilman the city of Sheboygan, 2 Black s 10,
cited with approval of supreme court of Geor-
gia in Verdery VS.. the village of Summervile,
s, Southeastern Reporter, 213-14
The power of taxation by the sovereign au.
thority Of the state has no limitation but the
constitution, and is construed according to the
of the states, particularly in the language used
about the uniform and ad valorem character of
taxation.
THE WISCONSIN DECISION.
The constitution of Wisconsin. article g. sec
ton |, provides: 1.-THE rule of taxation shall be
uniform, and taxes shall be levied upon such
property as the legislature shall prescribe. -
Under this language. in the case of Gilman vs.
the city of Sheboygan, Black $40, the supreme
court of the UnitedStates held: 1.-THE constitution
requires the rate Of taxation to be uniform, and
this means that all kinds of property, not abSo-
lutely exempt, must be taxed alike, by the same
standard of valuation equa ly with other prop
erty and co-eXtensive with the territory to hi h
1t applies" The court therefore decided that
tax for a special purpose upon the city Of
Sheboygan, and levied exclusively upon real
property, was discrimination in favor Of per-
sonal property, in conflict with the constitution
OF the state and therefore void.
The constitution of Ohio, article IL, section 2,
provides Finance and Taxation): Laws shall
be passed taxing by uniform rule, etc." all
property, real and personal, not exempt.
Under this language, in the case of city of
Lanesyille VS.. Richards, 5 Ohio State Rep. $50,
the supreme court of Ohio heidi THE general
assembly is no longer invested with the discre
ton to appOrtion the tax and to determine upon
what property, and in what proportion the bur-
den shall be laid. A uniform rate per cent. must
be levied upon all property subject to taxation,
according 70 its true valuation in money, so that
all may bear an equal burden"
. TIE constitution of Louisiana provides:
taxation shall be equal and uniform through
"a rat A 1Vthic IA yes V