Evening journal., 1901-03-26
.IS ADAMS Law
LEGAL MEASURE
This the Question Court in
Banc Will Decide
LENGTHY ARGUMENT NOW ON
Salisbury and Higgins Argue Against
COnStitutiOnality Of The
Measure

Court IN Bdnc IS IN session to-day,
hearing argument in the case stated of
The Equitable Guarantee and Trust
Company, trustee under the will OF Al
len " Leslie. deceased. vs.. John p.
Donahoe. Willard Salisbury and An
thony Higgins appear for the pain
tins: Peter l.. Cooper and John H..
Rodney for the State. and Henry c.
Conrad for the city.
The action is brought to test the
constitutionality of the Adams Tax
law.
Facts in the case are that Donahoe
claimed plaintiffs were legally as
.sessed for the year 1898 against the
Equitable Guarantee and Trust Com
pany. trustee under the will OF Allen v.
Leslie. deceased. stocks, bonds and
other securities to the amount OF S24,-
S72.35 the tax thereon being $7S35,
which the trustees paid to Donahoe on
july 10, 1900. under protest as being il
legally eNacted, and with the ayowed
and understood intention that II
would seek by suit the recovery of the
money from him. They paid similar
amount in 1899 under similar condi-
tions.
Continuing plaintiffs say: "That the
taxes paid for the year 1898 as afore-
said were not assessed on or prior to
the first day Of January, 1898, and no
list thereof was posted before the 18th
day Of January 1898. nor did the asses
sor in making the assessment from the
year 1898 give any notice to the par
ties assessed Of any time and place
where they would attend or sit for the
purpose Of correcting errors in assess
ment for the year 1898; nor was any
return made to the Levy Court on the
first Tuesday of February in said year;
nor did the Levy Court afford any op-
portunity Of said taxables to obtain the
correction of the assessment for said
year. or sit as a court of appeals for
the correction of such assessment
Plaintiffs brief contends that taxes
collected from them by the defend
ant were Illegally eXacted. Because
the acts Of assembly purporting 10 au-
thorize the collection Of the tax were
unconstitutional null and VOID. and
because the taxes paid for the yeai
1898 were not assessed according Il
law
Discussing the act from the point o
view of unconstitutionality Mr.. Sauls
bury said: Not only is the title OF tho
act defective and therefore unconsti.
tutional because il fails 20 mention mu.
nicipal taxation in its title, but the
title is deceptive, false and misleading
in another respect, namely: It is sale
to be an act to equalize when the pro.
visions of the amending act OF 1S9,
only produces inequality in taxation II
New Castle county, compelling, as ii
does. citizen of rural New Castle te
contribute three times as much fol
county government as is required of ;
citizen Of Wilmington.
Continuing, Mr. Salisbury argued
that the act Of 1897 is Unconstitutional
null and void because It is in violation
OF section /, article s Of the Constitu
ton Of 1897, in that the taxes laid ar,
not uniform upon the same class o
subjects within the territorial limits o
the authority levying the tax. Tn,
new Constitution. which came TO be thl
fundamental law of the State by pro
mitigation on June 10, 1897. provide,
among other things that "all take,
shall be uniform upon the same clas
or subjects within the territorial linn
IFS OF the authority levying the tax
and shall be levied and collected unde
general laws, but the General Assem-
Dly may by general laws exempt from
taxation such property as in the opin
ion Of the General Assembly will bes
promote the public welfare.