Birmingham state herald., 1897-07-01

class upon which it is imposed. 1 Desty
 on Taxation. section S6. Cooley on Tax ation. (2nd td) SIS; Delaware Railroad
 Tax, IS Wall 205: City of New Orleans ys. Kaufman. 29 La. Ann. BPS: Durach's Appeal, 62 Penn. st. 491. The general assembly in the legitimate exercise of the
 .axing power may impeee direct taxes on lands only, to the exclusion of every variety or species of personal property; or 1t may not tax lands, and subject per- sonal property only to direct taxation. This Is within the general grant of the power of taxa ion, which of necessity in-
 wolves the power of selecting that prop erty or species of property which in the | judgment of the legislature is the better able to bear the burden of taxation. And as is said by Judge Coolsy, "Wha; is true of property is true of privileges and oc- equations also; the state may tax all, or it may select for taxation certain classes and leave the other untaxed. Considera tions of general policy de- tsrmne what -he selection shall be in
 such cases, and there is no restriction on the power of choice unless one is im- posed by the constitution" Cooley on Taxation, 570. Corporal tions are of every character and variety; have grown to be almost as various and diverse in theiF | franchises as are the avoca.ions or pur | suits of natural persons. The idea whiQ seems to pervade the argument of coun-' | sel for appellant, that if one of these arti- | ficial beings, or one class of them is se- | lected as subject of taxation, the whole | body of private corporations, without re- gard to the diversity of their franchises, l must be subjected to the like tax finds | no support in authority, and derogatee | from the power of the 1egislatur to se- 1 lec.- the objects and subjects of taxa | ton. A power it may be admitted cap | a be of abuse, as Is all human power but | If abused, the correction does not rest l with the courts. Nor can it be said that l it would be right or just 70 subject all these artificial beings, without re gard to l the diversity of their powers and fnan- | chiseS to like taxation. We will not pro- | long discussion-the tax imposed by the subdivision is imposed for the purpose | of revenue; it is of the ways and means," the legisfa ture has employed ] to meet the expenses of government, and 1 it's other pecuniary necessities, and Is not offensive to the constitution.
 ?. Unless a different time is specified, l statutes take effect and become oper- 1 ative from the day of the approval by the | governor. Sedg. Stat. and Const. Law, 1 67; Sutherland on Stat. Con-. 104; Taylor l vs. Hand. S1 Ala, 3S3 Br Bank Mobile vs. Murphy, Ala, 119. This general ! principle is not denied nor is it contend l ed that there are any words in the sub l division, or in the act which it forms a 1 part, indicative of a legislative intention | to postpone it's operations to a future I day. The contention is that such inten- l tion must be implied, or the subdivision | will be inharmonious with the statute, 1 Code 634), which declares that all li censes shall be for one year, and shall | expire on the thirty-first of December, unless the business commences after the first of July, in which case the price of | license shall be one-half of the years H. cense. The statute referred to has re- | lation only to the licenses designated in other sections of the code. and it cannot l be referred to licenses and taxes exacted by subsequent statutes. There is no want of harmony in the operation of such statutes-each has its own field of oper- | ation, and the two can never collide or | conflict. The subdivision exacts the tax and license from the corporation doing 1 business in this state, after the day of ap- 1 proval of the act. It is ah annual tax the I corporation is required to pay, and from l the day of it's payment, the corporation I having obtained its license, is entitled to l do business. It is a new license and tax exacted by the legislature, having no re- I lation to or connection with the taxes l imposed OF licenses exacted by pre-ex- | isting legislation, and Is governed by the terms of the statute creating it.
 3. Counties have no inherent power of taxation they have only such power as 1 is delegated to them, and must have ex- press authority of law to sanction the | taxes they demand. Cooley on Taxation, | 67S; Burroughs on Taxation, 13S. The constitution recognizes the power of the general assembly to confer on them au- l thority to levy direct taxes on property, | but limits the authority to an annual levy | of not more than one-half of one per l cent of the value of the taxable proper l ty therein Const. Art. xii, 5. When the | general assembly has imposed specific | taxes for state uses, requiring a license not only IS evidence of the payment of 1 the tax, but as a condition on which | privilege may be exercised, or business | pursued, authority has been conferred l on the court of county commissioers, the | body through and by which all the pow | CTS of the county are exercised, if they | deemed it necessary, to add to the state tax a county tax not exceeding fifty per l centum of the state tax. Code, 633; | Pamph Acts, 1S86-7, pp. 13, 316). A gen l eral authority to add county tax to | specific taxes the state may impose is | not conferred. The power conferred is 1 special-it is limited to the specific taxes l enumerated in connection with it, and is | to be cxercisd only when the commis- l sinners' court deems it necessary, and l keeping within the limitation prescribed l to the extent only they may deem it nec- | essary Authority is not conferred by 1 the statute to add county tax to the l specific tax imposed on the franchises of 1 corporations doirg business within the i state, and the judge of probate was in l error in demanding the payment of a l county tax as a condition upon which l he would issue license to the appellant l The error should have been corrected by | mandamus compelling the issue of the H.
 cense-it affords to the appellant no ex- cuse, or justification for continuing to do | business without the license and without | the payment of the tax.
 We find no error in the record, and the l Judgment of the court below is affirmed.