The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-11-10
Butte Department.
IT IS WELL ARGUED
The Chinese Laundry License Case Be-
fore Judge Speer.
COURT DECISIONS READ
Messrs. Booth and Harvey Quote
Law on the Subject and Mon
day They VIII File Briefs
In Support.
COURT DECISIONS real

In support.
The Chinese laundry license case, on
which the county is making a test as to
the constitutionality of the law. came up
before Judge Speer yesterday morning on
a demurrer to the complaint in the suit
of County Treasurer Hill against Camp
Sing for S57 due as a laundrey license un-
der the new law. The case goes to the
constitutionality OF the whole of the rev.
enue law relating to licenses. the doubt
full legality of which has frequently been
referred to in the columns of the Stand
ard. The constitution of the state, taken
from that of California. says the legisla-
ture has no power to levy a tax for
county or municipal purposes, but may
authorize local boards to do So The leg
islature however, levied a license for
such purposes and in the act provided
that % per cent. of IL should be paid TO
the state. The principal question raised
was whether on not a license is tax.
Thomas C. Harvey appeared as counsel
for the laundrymen and Deputy County
Attorney T.. s. Booth for the treasurer.
Mr. Harvey read the provisions of the
constitutions and codes of Montana and
California relating to the levying of IL
cense or tax by the state legislature for
county, town and municipal purposes.
Decisions of the California supreme court
were read declaring the law of that state
to be unconstitutional, and also defining
a license TO be a tax within the meaning
of the constitutional provisions Mr..
Harvey read a decision of the Montana
supreme court on statutory construction
to the effect that where a statute is ia
ken from the laws of another state the
construction placed upon IL by the courts
of the state from which II is taken shall
be the construction placed upon 1t in
this state.
In reply to Mr.. Harvey, Mr.. Booth ad-
mitted the similarity between the consti-
tutional provisions of the two states quo
ted by Mr.. Harvey, but also read anoth-
err provision of the same article Of the
Montana constitution which says the leg
islative assembly shall have the right
also to impose a license tax on persons
and corporations doing business for state
purposes. Mr.. Booth said that section
gave the legislature absolute power TO
levy such a license tax. In recent de-
cision in a case taken up from Lewis and
Clarke county the supreme court evaded
the constitutional question, but did de-
eide that license was not tax as
coming within the equality OF the uni
formity provision of the constitution.
The California constitution says the leg
islature shall not impose" a tax. Sec
ton / of Article ~ of the Montana con-
stitution provides that the legislature
may also Impose" a license tax on per-
sons and corporations doing business In
the state Section 4 of the same article
prohibits the legislature from 'levying'
a tax for county. town and municipal
purposes, and section IL also uses the
word levy" and means property assess
ed upon in the usual manner. The con-
stitution recognizes a distinction between
the two words, said Mr. Booth, and II is
clear from the decision I'm the case from
Lewis and Clarke county that a license is
not tax. The legislature is beyond
question prohibited from "levying" a tax.
but may Impose" a license tax on per-
sons and corporations doing business in
the state. IL is not a tax, but a regula-
tion.
Mr. Harvey contended that the words
Impose" and levy" were synonymous and
were used Unfortunately in the consti-
tuition. Section / of Article II says the
necessary revenue for the support end
maintenance of the state shall ne rro-
vided by the legislative assembly, which
shall levy a uniform rate of assessment
and taxation and shall prescribe such
ty, city. town or other municipal pur-
ton for taxation of all properly, except
that specially provided for i'm this article.
The legislative assembly may u,so i'm
pose a license tax both upon persons and
upon corporations doing business In the
state" There is no provision of the cen
stitution Of California similar to The one
in Montana above quotel. Section of
the same article Of the Montana consti-
tuition provides: THE legislative assem-
bly, shall not levy taxes upon the iahabi-
tants or property i'm any county, city,
town or municipal corporation for coun-
~, town or municipal purposes, but IL
may by law vest i'm the corporate author
titles powers to assess and collect taxes
for such purposes"
The corresponding section I'm the Cali
fornia constitution, upon which the Cali
fornia license tax law has been declared
unconstitutional, reads: THE legislature
shall have no power TO impose taxes up
on counties, cities. towns or other public
or municipal corporations, or upon the
inhabitants or property thereof for coun-
~, city. town or other municipal pur-
poses. but may by general laws vest I'm
the corporate authorities thereof the
power TO assess and collect taxes for
such purposes"
Mr. Harvey said he thought the above
provisions of the constitutions of the two
states were all that appeared to be mate
rial TO the question raised. and then read
about a dozen sections from the Mon
tana codes with corresponding provisions
from the California statutes. He said the
only difference between the two consti-
tutions relating to the question is that
the Montana constitution has the provi-
sion that the legislative assembly may
also impose a license tax. etc. In pass
ing on the same constitutional question
the California supreme court seems TO
take the view that constitution intended
10 provide that each county should gov