The Anaconda standard., 1896-04-07

Idea that the speaker intends to stop at
the latter place for the same purpose
which called him to the former. We
are of opinion there is no real merit in
defendants contention as to the use of
this word also"
Therefore, having passed this branch
OF the contention, there are no such
limitations upon the power of the leg
islature as are contended for by the
defendant, unless they are found in
section 4 of Article XII. We will exam
Inc that section in moment We
pause at this point to suggest another
matter. and that is, to examine the
opinions of the trainers of the consti-
tuition, which they recorded during the
preparation of this Article XII Such
opinions may be examined as tending
to show the intention. This was done
in Pollock VS.. Farmers Loan and Trust
Co., 157 u. s. 429. popularity known as
the income tax case, in which Mr.. Chief
Justice Fuller said:
I'VE inquire, therefore, what at the
time the constitution was framed and
adopted. were recognized as direct
taxes? What did those who framed
and adopted il understand the terms TO
designate and include?"
The learned Chief Justice then went
into an extensive examination of the
history of the country, and the debates
in the constitutional convention of the
United States.
We have consulted the proceedings
and debates of the constitutional con-
vention OF this state, at page 1925 ct
seq, as filed in the Office of the secre-
tary of state. There was an earnest de-
bate over section 1, article IL. ana many
opinions were forcibly expressed that
the state should not adopt a license
NJ oil 3 a so TnrnnnCGd
amend the last sentence of section i,
article IL, to read as follows: THE leg
islative assembly may also impose a
license tax for the regulation or the
sale of intoxicating liquors and other
occupations requiring police supervis-
ion, both upon persons and upon cor
porations doing business in the state,
and no license shall be imposed for any
other purpose" The proposed amend
ment was defeated. The last member
who spoke upon he question was the
Hon, T. f. Collins, chairman of the
committee on finance, and who was
also chairman of the same committee In
the old constitutions convention OF
1884. He said that II would be safe TO
leave this matter to the legislative as
sembly. The sentiment of the conven-
ton was to this effect. So. instead of
putting restrictions upon the power OF
the legislature as to licenses, as was
done as to taxes, the constitutional
convention deliberately and after earn
est debate and consideration declined
to do so. -
Therefore. with all the evidence, both
intrinsic and extrinsic, that the consti-
tuition intended to, and did, carefully
limit the legislative power as to taxa
ton. and the total lack of evidence that
II was the intention to so limit legis-
lation upon the subject of licenses,
may the language of section be con-
strued as a prohibition upon the legis-s
lature to impose license tax for coun-
ty purposes.
In the first place If section is such
prohibition, then there seems to us to
exist a repugnancy between that sec
tion and the last sentence of section l.
The latter says broadly that the legis-
lature may impose a license tax upon
persons and corporations, etc. There is
no qualification upon this power found
in section /. The power, as we have
above construed section 1, in not in
that section, confined to imposing the
license tax for state purposes only.
This unlimited power being given d.
rectly by section /, and deliberately as
the debates show, then, If we are to
find II afterwards limited by section 4,
the words of section to such effect,
should be clear. (Cooley's Constitu-
not think IL Is clear, and we will point
out the reasons for such opinion.
OF course, If he words levy taxes"
used in section 4. mean license taxes"
then the prohibition contended for by
the defendant exists, and If those words
do not mean license taxes" the prohi-
bition does not exist. In either event
1T is, in our opinion. immaterial wheth-
er the license tax is for regulation or
for revenue. and the distinction in Ii
cense fees, as to whether they are for
regulation or for revenue, Is not i'm
portant in this case. Even IL the IL
cense tax be for revenue (Which IL
probably is) and II 1t should therefore
be construed to be tax as that term
is used in the cases distinguishing be-
tween a tax and license fee for reg
ulation. 1t is in any event a license tax
provided for by the constitution,
whether imposed for either purpose. IL
is therefore CONSTITUTIONAL for either
purpose unless, of course. license taxes
were within the contemplation of the
trainers when they used the words
levy taxes and assess and collect
taxes' in section T. The use of several
words in article IL Is TO our mind i'm
portant The article. in speaking Of
primary taxation and taxes. uses the
words levy" "assess" and rate" In
the only place in the article where IL
cense tax is mentioned. the word is
impose" The former words were apt
in speaking of taxes. and the latter in
our opinion, is appropriate in describ-
ing licenses. AS TO the words assess"
rate" and levy" we note the follow
ing definitions from standard diction-
These definitions all carry the pop
ular understanding of the words. They
are appropriately used when speaking
of taxation. and. we believe. WITH the
learning and ability which
were present in the constitutional con-
vention. they were deliberately used.
They involve the ascertaining of values
and fixing taxes in proportion there
to. and are used all through article II
in regard TO taxes and taxation. See
sections of the article.
But none Of these words are used In
the last sentence of section !. article
12 where the license tax is provided for.
There the word Is impose" That word
is derived from the Latin word i'm