The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-09-18
HERE'S NEW PUZZLE
That New License Law Appears to Be
q Little Mixed.
THE CODE OUT OF JOINT
They Say That II Is In Clash With
the Constitution and That
There Is Trouble
Ahead.

Apparently there Is a kink In the
code which involves serious conse-
quences and which has not yet been
brought to public attention. This time
the license law Is the cause Of trouble.
In general way. the situation Is this:
The constitution Of Montana provides.
in Article XII. section I. thar ''the leg
islatlve assembly shall not levy taxes
upon the inhabitants or property In
any county. city. town or municipal
corporation for county. town or muni-
opal purposes, but II may. by law.
vest In the corporate authorities there
of powers to assess and collect taxes
for such purposes.
In this section. as In many others,
the constitution OF Montana follows
almost word for word the constitution
of California. A comparison OF the
two sections In question shows the
similarity of the organic law In the
two states. providing for local control
In matters OF taxation for local pur-
poses.
The license law In this states new
code enumerates in many sections the
people and the kinds OF business that
shall pay license. and one section
number i,O50-recites that all moneys
collected for license must be paid into
the treasury OF the county In which
the same was collected. 20 per cent
thereof for the use OF the county and
25 per cent thereof must be paid by
the county treasurer for the use of the
state. The license sections Of the
code are also practically parallel. in
many provisions relating to levy and
collection, with those of the California
code. The Montana code recites tina!
the county treasurer may proceed
against the person who fails TO pro-
cure license. Section 1880 OF the
California code directs that the collec-
tor shall bring suit against the delln-
quents.
This section was brought on appeal
before the supreme court Of California
1t was held that a license is a tax and
that therefore, under the section ol
the constitution which Is quoted above
the proposed enforcement OF collec'
tior could not be made. the action oi
the legislature In providing for the col
lection OF n local tax for local pur'
pose. except through local authorities
being unconstitutional The decision
of the supreme court OF California
says: THE section OF the code enacted
prior TO the present constitution au.
thorized the legislature to impose upon
those engaged In certain kinds OF busl-
ness a license" This provision is de-
clared to be inconsistent with the pres.
ent constitution and therefore inopera.
tive.
The present constitution of California
was ratified In 1879. The decision In
the case Just quoted ls In the People
versus Martin, vol. 80. California re-
ports. page 1853.
| The county officers have proceeded
TO collect licenses. in all the counties
as far as Is now known. without these
levies and collections being ordered by
the county commissioners. That Is tC
say. the collections have been made
on the strength OF a local levy made
by legislative act for local purposes
less the 25 per cent OF the collection
which goes to the state; the state. tC
all appearances. undertook the collec'
tion for the counties. There does moi
appear TO be In the code any provision
/ vesting in boards OF county commits
sioners the power 20 levy and collec,
these licenses. The state undertake.
to order 1t done. and. apparently. tha
Is unconstitutional. The commission
ers. to all appearances, cannot act
The conclusion Is that throughout TIL
state the collection of county license.
Is unconstitutional.