The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-03-04


Justice, considered the question of the
taxing power of the legislature in that
connection, and in the course of his
opinion used the following language:
A tax is a sum of money assessed
lIder the authority of the state, on the
person or property of an individual for
| the use of the state. Taxation, by the
very meaning of the term, implies thu
raising of money for public uses, and
excludes the raising Of it for private
objects and purposes.
| Our government is based on equality
| of right. The state cannot discriminate
among occupations, for a discrimina-
| ton in favor of one is discrimination
adverse to all others. While the state
is bound to protect all, it ceases TO give
| that Just protection when 1t AFFORDS
undue advantages or gives special ard
exclusive preferences to particular in
dividuals and particular and special in
dustries, at the cost and charge OF the
rest of the community.
Wehther the estates of citizens are to
be placed in the public treasury for the
purpose of dividing them or of loan
ing them to those who have not accu-
mulated them, matters not. In either
case the owner is despoiled of his es-
ia te and his savings are confiscated.
Brewer Brick company vs.. The In
habitants of Brewer, the same ques-
tions were involved but presented in
"a slightly different form. In this case
the Inhabitants of Brewer, in pursu-
ance of this law. passed vote ex-
enpting the Brewer Brick company
from taxation for the period of ten
years, in consideration of its establish
ment of brick-making mandatory
and expanding in the investment
sum exceeding ten thousand dollars.
This company enjoyed the exemption
for a year or two, after which, not
withstanding the enactment. the tax
collector demanded the payment of
tax of SCOTS, which was paid under
protest. This suit was brought to re-
cover that amount, and the court, con-
Isidering the questions involved, said:
Contingent and incidental benefits
may arise from the introduction of
manufacturing capital whenever the
enterprise is successful. But the re-
terprise become an injurious failure.
The inhabitants of a town cannot
legally be taxed to raise money to give
or to loan to individuals or corpora
tons for private purposes on account
of any supposed incidental advantages
which may possibly accrue therefrom.
The benefits are precisely those aris
ing from the introduction of capital or
labor and none other Hence
lit is universally held that the inciden
tai benefits of capital afford no justi-
fication for partial taxation"
In the case of The People vs. The
Town of Salem, 20 Mich. 452. Judge
Cooley, delivering the opinion of the
court upon the questions here involved,
argued as follows:
But it is not in the power of the
state, in my opinion. under the name
of bounty or any other cover Of sub
terfuge to furnish the capital to set
private parties up in any kind of bust
ness or to subsidize their business af-
ter they have entered upon it. A
bounty law, of Which this is the real
nature, is void. whatever may be the
pretense on which it may be enacted.
The right to hold out pecuniary in
ducements to the faithful performance
lof public duty in dangerous or respon-
sible positions stands upon different
casion to question the right to pay
rewards for the destruction of wild
beasts or other public pests; pro-
vision of this character being a mere
police regulation But the discrimina
ton by the state between different
classes of occupations or the favoring
of one at the expense of the rest,
Hq
ing, merchandising or milling. print
ling or rairoading. is not legitimate
legisla ton, and is an invasion of that
equality of right and privilege which
is the maxim of state government.
When the door is once opened to it.
there is 10 line at which we can stop
and say with confidence that thus far
but no further.
The Supreme Court Of Illinois de-
clared and upheld the same doctrine
in the case of Bissell VS.. the city of
Kankakee-64 III. 249; so did the SUI
preme Court of Iowa in SAMSON vs..
vernon-27 Ia. %; the same in Kansas,
as reported in Vol II Of Kansas re-
ports. p. S22; also California in The
1Spple vs. L dlh, 90 SdI UoJ. L HS Adu-
guage of the courts is equally positive
in al these cases cited by Councillor
Williams. We have not space for them
all, but will close with the following
language of the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania:
THE Legislature has no constitu-
tional right to levy taxes or to assist
any municipal corporation tc do it, in
order to raise funds for mere private
purpose. No such authority has passed
to the Assembly by the general grant
of legislative power. This would not
be legislation. Taxation is The mode of
raising revenue for public purposes.
When it is prostituted to objects in no
way connected with the pubic irter-
est or welfare. it ceases to be taxation
and becomes plumber"
This doctrine is admirably and terse-
ly stated in | Hare Const. Law $50;
But we may say in general that
public use must be something which
is beneficial to the community and
through it to the individuals, and noa
merely to individuals and through
them to the community"
The Union Pacifi, railroad coro1aa11v