Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1894-03-29
OCCUPATION TAX UPHELD.
JUDGE HUMPHREY DECIDES IN
FAVOR OF THE CITY.
Result of the Habeas Corpus Case Is
Against Mr.. Crawford-Car
Definition Of the Courts Position
and the Reasons Therefor.

A decision has been handed down
on the habeas corpus case of c. $.
Crawford who refused to pay his
license tax as an attorney. Upon
every point at issue Judge Humphrey
up holds City Attorney +. +. Dewey
and the city council, While the
right to adopt an occupation tax
ordinance is conceded and the legal
ity Of the present ordinance is es-
tablished.
In the decision filed this morning
in the district clerks Office Judge
Humphrey, after relating the formal
facts in the case and the three grounds
of trial, gives the following judgment:
THE COURTS DECISION.
The question of the wisdom or the
policy Of passing such an ordinance
and providing for that mode OF raising
revenue Is one that is coniided solely
to the mayor and city council.
1t is conceded that the power exists
under the statutes Of Kansas, and the
only question presented is, whether
that power in this instance has been
properly exercised
The first objection urged is that
the ordinance fails to comply with the
laws Of the State.
| The particular section to which IL
is supposed to be obnoxious is 40 of
the act concerning cities Of the
second class. This section provides
that; "All license taxes shall bee
regulated by ordinance and except
for show, theaters and other exhibit
tions, shall expire on the last day of
june or the last day of December next
after the same are issued. No license
shall he issued until the amount
prescribed therefor shall be paid to
the city treasurer.
II Is contended that the ordinance
provides an annual license tax upon
all permanent or continuing occupa-
tions and professions, whereas the
statute provides that the licenses
should expire each six months.
1t is believed that this construction
of the statute is untcnable. In sup
port Of this theory it would be ncces-
sary to change the language Of this
section to read. Such licenses shall
expire on the last day of June AND
December instead Of "the last day of
June OR December"
1t simply means that licenses issued
after the last day of December and
before the last Of the ensuing June
shall expire the last day of December
and those issued after the last day of
. June and before the last day OF De-
cember, expire the last Of June. The
purpose of the statute seems to be to
give to the licensee either a full year,
or the greater portion of the year
within two given periods for the
termination of the license. | find no
support for semi-annual licenses in
the statute, and in this respect the
ordinance conforms to it.
The second objection is that the
ordinance is discriminating Unequal
unjust and not uniform upon the
class within which the petitioner
? falls. The circumstances wherein ii
is claimed to be discriminating and
unequal and unjust is, where two
lawyers are conjoined in a co-part-
nership and jointly conduct Il single
business they are taxed as one,
whereas one lawyer engaged in the
like business is taxed an equal
amount, and it is claimed that each
member of the co-partnership should
be required to pay the full tax.
A man is taxed not because he is q
lawyer, doctor, or merchant but be-
cause he is engaged in one of those
professions and such occupation.
< The license is not in the nature OF
: poll tax, but n license tax ON the
business which the party is. engaged
in, or proposes to carry on.
There are three banking institution.
= in Abilene, one under individual own.
crship, one in the ownership Of q
=. copartnership, comprising several per
sons, and the other in the ownership
of numerous persons aggregated into
II a corporation. II this objection wa'
c tenable it would be equally availabl,
e for the individual banker to object t,
the tax upon him, that the individ
uals of the one and the stakeholder
of the other Of his competitors wcr,
l., not each required to pay the tax. Thi
species Of tax is not deemed to be I
personal tax like poll tax, but
" license of, and means of regulating
!. the business conducted.
l. This exact question came befor
= the supreme court of Georgia in tn
case of the mayor and Aldermen o
~ Savannah vs.. James X. Hines
II In this case the court says: "Tha
section of the ordinance which require
that firm or co-partnership carry
ing on business jointly in the sam
II establishment as partners shall pa
Al but one tax ON the business, is RICH
in principle but would be wrong I'm
just and unequal il each partner wa
II to be taxed separately on the bust
e. ness of the co-partnership.
j. This was held to apply as well l.
r legal co-partnerships as to those O
NJ commercial concern.
~ The third and last ground upo
which the writ is prayed is that Oh
city council have assumed to reduc
the amount of the tax required by tn
n butchers, liyerymen and bakers b
a resolution, and without amendmen
q of the ordinance itself, and ha
. authorized the city clerk to issue Ii
- censes in cases without full payment
The evidence on this point was no
y very satisfactory, but / am incline
Ie to think it would have equally faile
p to reach the point If it had been a
| II.