The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1900-03-14
! Celebrated Case

In the SUMMER of is:'S IL warrant was
issued against ". H. Tuck cr and !. i.
| fucker Tor lailin. To clean ont running.
| streams on their lands When he r.l~..
WAS called for hearing before Mayi>-
| trltc Russell. ilir attorneys for the de
| PENDANTS, MrSSiS. Bnnam x Watkins,
moved t" dismiss TIN, warrant on The
| ground that the Act (Which i. known
is The Drainage Law WAS in conflict
with that provision of the Constitution
of 1s?1. which prohibits special l,gi>la-
| ton. The Magistrat" SUSTAINED! !lis
view and dismissed the warrant, where
upon Mcssrs. Tribblc X Prince, and
HrcaZcalr, representing the piOsccll-
ton. appealed to the Circuit Court,
which reversed the Magistrates ,lccis-
ion. Upon this the defendants appeal
Ell to the Supreme Court, which Court
sustained the Circuit Judge and sent
the case back to the Magistrate for
trial. The call Of the case by the
Magistrate the second time, the c0lln-
sci for defendants again moved to dis
miss the warrant, OH the ground that
the Act WAS in conflict with those pro
visions of the Constitution in 1868,
which required that taxation should be
uniform and equal. The Magistrate
| refused the motion am. the defendants
appealed to the Circuit Court, which
sustained the Magistrate, and the de
PENDANTS appealed To the Supreme
Court. That Court has just filed it's
decision reversing the Circuit Judge
and the Magistrate. and holding that
the Act in question is unconstitutional.
We print below their decision. Ii an
pears hat we have no drainage law,
bnt the people will this summer vote
on an amendment to the Constitution,
which. il adopted, will permit the
enactment OF Il law which can hr en-
forced.
Following is the decision:
The state, respondent, VS.. ". II.
Tucker and J. Il. Tucker. appellants.
Constitutional law. Police power.
Taxing power.
The appellants were charged before
1913 and l2'! IF the revised Statutes,
which require all land owners in certain
counties named to remove trash, etc,
from running streams oil their lands,
and which aliXcs penalties to non-pcr-
formancc of such requirement. The an
pcllants moved the magistrate to dis
miss the case. on the ground that said
Sections are in conflict with certain pro-
visions Of the constitution of 1863 and
1898. This motion being refused, the
defendants appealed to the circuit
court.
The circuit judge held that the lcgis-
latiOn in question cannot be supported
rs II legitimate exercise of the police
power; and there being no exception to
such holding and no notice that re-
spondent would ask the Supreme Court
:a sustain :iiG decree 5ip0n the ground
that the legislation in question is Il
Legitimate exercise OF the police power,
that question cannot be considered.
The Circuit Judge erred in holding
that the legislation contained in Sec
tiOns 1918 and l21i of the revised Stat
utcs was an exercise of the taxing
power.
Even il the said Sections can be re-
garded rs IN attempt to exercise the
power of taxation, then they conflict
with that portion Of Section of article
iX. of the Constitution of 1863 which
was of force ut tho time these Sections
were adopted, by which the require
ment is that "the General Assembly
shall provide by law for n uniform and
equal rate OF assessment and taxation"
etc, as we'll as with that portion of
Section of article X. of the present
Constitution, which contains similar
requirements for tho tax (if it be n taxi
is not uniform and equal, but applies
only to certain landowners in certain
specified Counties of tho State.
If the burden imposed upon land
owners could be regarded a tax it
II this sO-called tax is to be regarded
as u tax on property. then the legis-
latiOn in question is in conflict with
section 36 of article l., Section :}:s of
article H., Section of article iX, of the
Constitution Of 1865 rs we'll as with
Section @ of article l., Section 90 of
article xi. and Section 13 Of article \.
of the Constitution of 1895, which pro-
vided that all property subject to tnx
alton shall be taxed according to its
actual value as asccrtaincd Dy an as
scssmcnt made for tho purpOSc-and
no provision has been made for such
assessment.
IF the so-callcd tax can be regarded
ms tax upon persons, it is uncoNstitu-
ti1nai,. because moi uniform anu equal.
On the former appeal in this case GA
s. C.: 25D the single point decided in
relation to the COnstitutiOnality of the
legislation here in question was that
as the provisions of the present Consti-
tuition are not retroactive, Sections 1878
and 1874 could not be held to- be vio-
lative of Section 81 of articleiii. of that
instrument, forbidding tho enactment
of local or special laws in certain cases.
The Constitutional objections now
presented were neither presented nor
considered on tho former appeal in
this cnse.
remanded. Opinion by Mr.. Chief Jus
tico McIvcr. Filed March Z.
MeSSrS. BOnham S. Watkins for an