The Portland daily press., 1894-07-28

.--.-
trainers of the constitution to prohibit any
oiher species of taxation, but to leave tine
Legislature the power 10 impose such other
might require" 1ysan v. stale % Md. r.
5o6; State v. Dalrymple, 10 Md. 29i.
In Virginia the Supreme Court held
the same doctrine in Frye v. Jacob, IA
Graft. AGO. In that case the court said:
The right to take property by devise
or descent is the creature of the law and
secured and protected by its authority
1he Legislature might, if it saw proper,
restrict the succession to decedent's
particular class of his kindred, say to his
lineal descendants and ascendants, and it
might impose terms and conditions upon
which collateral relatives may be permit
ted to axe it; or it may tomorrow, if it
please, absolutely repeal the statute of wills
and that of descents and distributions, and
declare that upon the death OF a party, his
property shall be applied to the payment of
his debts and the residue appropriated to
public uses.''
The statute of New York, chap. 4s3,
laws of 1885, contains substantially the
same provisions, and nearly the same ex-
emptions, as the first section of chap. 146
of the laws of 1858 of our State. 1t does
not differ in principle from ours. The
question of the constitutIonality of this
act came before the New York Court of
Appeals, in matter of Mcpherson, 104 n.
Y .306, and that court said:
We entertain no doubt that such tax
can be constitutionally imposed. The pow
er of the Legislature over the subject of
taxation, except as limited by constitutional
restrictions, Is unbounded. 1t is for that
body, in the exercise of its discretion, to
selecI objects of taxation. 1t may impose
all the taxes upon land, or all upon person
al property. or all upon houses or upon in
comes"
A like statute in New Hampshire was
held, by the Supreme Court of that State,
to be in violatlon of that States consui-
tuition, which empowered the legislature
to assess and lay taxes, but expressly
limited that grant Of power to "propor-
tlonal and reasonable assessments, rates
and taxes, upon all the inha bitants and
residents within the said State, and upon
the estates within the same. And By
sec.12 of the bill of rights, that every
memb Der of the community lis bound to
contribute his share to the expensen of
the State. Curry V. Spencer, 81 N. H.
624
We are not aware that the question has
been decided in any other SEaGe, where
similar statutes exist. These decisions
OF the court, being based upon constitu-
lions containing provisions, in some
cases unlike, and in others like, but not
the same, rs our constitution, have a
lesssned weight as authority here. In
Virginia the constitution required taxes
to he equal and uniform. In Maryland
the constitutional provision required
every person holding property to contrib
ute his proportion Of public taxes, accord
ing to his actual worth in real or personal
property. But whatever may be the
particular language of the several State
constitutions, all the cases assume that
the constitution, either in terms or by
necessary implication, require taxation
OF property to be equal and uniform, and
in all of them, except the New Hamp-
shire case, succession taxes are regarded
as special taxes or duties, or, more ex-
actly, excuses, and following in the regu-
lar and ordinary annual taxation of
property, contemplated and provided for
and uarded by constitutional provisions
and limi talions.
The statute under consideration pro-
vides.a subject and nude of taxation not
heretofore resorted to in this State. The
act provides sufficient opportunity to
parties interested to be heard, and have
their rights protected, and cannot be
deemed to conflict with Article !, section
of the Constitution, which provides
that no person shall be deprived of his
property or privileges, but by judgment
of his peers, or by the law of the lard;
nor with section 81 of the same Article,
which prohibits the taking of private
property for public uses without Just
compensation. Perhaps the latter pro-
vision is limited to the exercise of the
right of eminent domain, and does rot
extend to the subject of taxation. The
word compensation" seems to imply a
money or other valuable consideration,
MS distinguished from the protection of
life and property afforded by the State as
a return for the tax contributions of its
oitizeus.
Does the act conflict with the constitu-
tional provision which requires all taxes
assessed upon real and personal estate,
to be aDportioned and assessed equally,
according to the just value thereof?
The first constitution of Maine provid-
ed that, while the public Expenses
shall be assessed on polls and estates, a
general valuation shall be taken at least once
in ten years." Art. TX. sec 7. Section s,
| Immediately following, was, ''All taxes upon
| real estate, assessed by authority of this
State, shall be apportioned and assessed
| equally, according to the just value thereof
These provisions remained unchanged until
| 1875, when, by an amendment. the words,
| 'sand PERSONAL were inserted after the word
| ''reaP' in the eighth section. Prior to this
amendment, there was no express constitu-
| tional requirement that taxes on personal
property should be uniform; but it was left
| to the Legislature to determine the subjects,
mode and rate OF taxation of personal prop
erty, in its discretion, and without limitation
or restriction, unless such exercise of power
should degenerate into such arbitrary, OPP
| pressiye and unreasonable exactions, as to be
| subversive of the principles of the constitu-
| ton and the rights of the people. Cooley's
Constitutional Limitations, PIP. GIG, GIT.
The two sections I and s, as they now
stand, must be construed together, to deter
! mine their scope and extent. Section pro-
vides that. so long as the public expenses
| shall be assessed on polls and estates, to
equalize the burden as nearly as practicable,
a general valuation shall be taken as
often as every ten years. By its
terms, it necessarily implies periodical and
| regularly recurring assessment of predeter-
| mined amounts, proportional to the entire
estates within the taxed district, to meet con-
tinuing and regularly recurring expenses,
while section s, manifestly referring to the
same class of general taxes, provides for ali
| equal apportonment and assessment accord
ing to value. Its clear that these sections
contemplate only the general, constantly re-
curing assessment upon the same property,
| and do not include occasional, exceptional
and special subjects and modes of taxation.
| The constant practice, hitherto unobjected to-,
of imposing duty, or exacting fee, for the
right to exercise certain vacations, not illegal
| in themselves, but made so by statute for the
| purpose of deriving a revenue therefrom,
! Suoh aS III reaIlirad of jtinernnt vendorc no