The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1893-03-18
The Court of Appeals on Taxation


From the Baltimore Sun.
+ LAWYERS, and even judges themselves. are
( in the habit of distinguishing ju dicial utter
ances as belonging 10 two classes-as what
4 the court decides and what it merely says,
without deciding or being required to decide
j. the particular case before 1t. Judicial
opinions Of the latter class are known as
ojiter dieta, and according to a high legal
( authority are not binding decisions. and al
most receive the respect due TO the private
! opinions of the Judges by whom uttered.
Ii is necessary to bear this distinction care
1 fully in mind in reading the opinion OF the
/ Court of Appeals in the Hyaltsville siBgle-tax
case. There are several distinct questions
decided by the court. There is good deal
! that must be regarded as purely obiter The
I case before the court was the application of
sundry citizens of Prince Georges county
who objected to the single tax and wished to
J test its validity for mdHddBaus to compel the
commissioners of Hyattsville to restore TO the
assessable basis for 1892 the valuation oil
buildings and other Improvements which they
had stricken from the assessment, and so to
1 include in their assessment the valuation OF
personal property. This the Court OF APP
peals. affirming the order OF the Circuit Court
for Prince Georges county, decides cannot
now be done, the period fixed by law, both
for assessing personal property in 1892 and
for leyying the tax for that year having passed.
While denying the petitioners, however,
the specific relief sought by them upon the
main question involved, the decision of the
court is in their favor. The court decides
against the validity of the single tax levied
by the commissioners of Hyattsville upon land
values only upon two grounds. First, they
say that under the very local act OF 1892,
chapter 2S5, under which they acted, the
commissioners had no right to omit from
the assessment the valuation of buildings and
| improvements. The act expressly required
them to assess land and improvements, and
the power given them, says the court,
to make deduction was power of correction
and revision simply, not power otwholesale
exemption. Secondly, the court decides thai
the ac, Of 1892, chapter 285, is itself unconsii.
tutional and void so far as it auth ,rizes an
exemption of all personal property in Hyatts
vile from taxation. This, the court says. is
directly in the teeth Of the fifteenth article Of
the declaration of rights, which requires taxes
to be imposed upon the basis of an assessment
/ of all property, real and personal.
Thus far what the court says is in the ma
ture of direct decision upon question upon
which the court was both competent and
called upon to pass authoritatively in a judi
cial proceeding If the court had stopped
here there would be nothing, perhaps, in its
opinion 10 call for criticism or dissent, al
though there are many lawyers of acknowl-
edged ability, in this State who, if the ques-
ton were new one and disembarrassed OF
former decisions and presidents, would not
agree with the court in its construction of the
| fifteenth article of the declaration of rights.
In the language of the Supreme Court of
the United States, in SO O. S. Repts. 2ls, and
I07 U. S. 179, 1.-The case called for nothing
more; il more was intended by the judge who
delivered the opinion it was purely obiter. -
Judge McSherrys argument in favor of the
present rule of taxation contained in article
Is of the declaration Of rights as being not
merely sanctioned by the practice of over a
century and long line of judicial decisions,
but as being 'eminently just in itself as a
sound and long accepted axiom of political
economy" is not only obiter, but likely to add
somewhat to the warmth of pending con
troversy in Maryland.