Birmingham state herald., 1897-07-04

seen. the act proceeds to levy a tax of 20 cents. on the Yalu= of every s100 worth of property in the city for the purpose of the promotion of public education within It's Iimits-a subject not referable and cognafe to the Subject expressed in the title. and which would never be suggest cd to the legislative mind from reading or hearing the caption rad. The amend ments referred to in the caption. covered in pant by provisions already existing in the original enactment. and werz trivial and unimpoItant as compared with the other proposed amendment--.o raise an additional tax for public schools. which was manifestly the main, controlling purpose of the enactment, and yet 1t is not disclosed or even hinted at in the cAption. The provision is so violative of section ?, aff, ". of the constitution, requiring that each law shall contain but one subject, which shall b= clearly ex- pressed in the title. we need indulge TO argument to show ht. The adjudlcations are abundant and pointed in eondemna- ton of such legislation. We content our selves by a reference to cases on the sub sjeet. in which others also will be found cited.
 Ballentyne vs. wickersham 75 Ala. 5ss; ex parte Reynolds, 87 Ala. 13S; ex paTte Cowapt 92 Ala. 94; Woolf vs. Taylor, 9S Ala. 254; ex parte Gayles, 10S Ala. 514
 ?. section of Article XI. of the constl- tuition provides that 'fNo city town or other municipal corpora.ion. other than provided for in tfAs ar-ic,e, shall levy or collect a larger rate of taxation, in any one year, on the property thereof, than one-haR of 1 percentum of the value or such property as assessed for state tax a.ion during tfla preceding year., etc IT this tax had been authorized to be levied directly by the city, most obviously, II would have been in direct violation Of this provision of the constitution. as be- ing lax authorized to be levied by the city in addition 0 the maximum rate or taxation authoriz d by the constitution For this reason no doubt, such pro vision was not incorporated in the net. IL was supposed, however, 4s appears from the terms of the ac., that this con- stitutional inhibition might be avoided, by providing that the state should levy and cellect the tax and pay the same ovsr to the Treasurer of the beard of ed- ucation. In aid of this device, 1t is pro- vided. as We have seen sthat whenever the tax levied by the state shall exceed 5 cents on every $100 of taxable prop erty, then the tax hereby levied shall be diminished to that rate. which added to the rate levied by the state, shall not exc ed 75 cents on every $l00 worth of taxable property-the limit fixed by the constitution" But if his were allowed, 'ft@woliltls effsetuajly emasculate this eer- stitutional prohibition. It would sanction the levy .9g tax by the , state flo for ;t1, ns
 
 which the. city .iteelf Is prohibited by the constitution from levying and collect ing. and which, if sanctioned as to one cf y, might be extended to every other locality In the state, in overthrow of this furdsm ntal law. IL would allow a thing to be done indirectly which is forbidden to be directly done.
 The constitutional inhibition applied with equal force. as prohibition agains. the levy and collection of such tax, or municipal Corporation. Elyton Land or municipal cirporation. Elyton Land Co vs. Mayor S9 Ala AT; Hare vs. Kim nedy, S3 Ala sos; Schultz vs. Eberly, S3 Ala. 246.
 VfTat we have said must not be under stood as questioning he correctness of anything decided in the case of Mayor vs. I@fne, S9 Ala. 461, touching the pow CT of the legislature to authorize assess ments on property for local improve n1e'fts. fTh9t case. on the other hand. supports what has been here decided. as to his special tax.
 There, was no error in sustaining 'he demurrer to the complaint. Affirmed.