The sun., 1901-03-27
ADAMS TAX
ARGUMENT
Peter L. Cooper, Jr., Holds That
Law is Constitutional
TAX LEGALLY COLLECTED
Argument is Being Made Before
Court in Banc-Case Was Opened
by willard Salisbury Repre-
senting Plaintiff.

Argument was begun in the Court Of
Banc yesterday in the case stated to set
tie the cnstitutionalty Of the Adams
Tax Law.
Peter l.. Cooper, Jr., of counsel for the
defendant in his argument yesterday
afternoon said in part: ''This is an ac-
tion in assumpsit brought by the Equit-
able Guarantee and Trust Company to
recover from John Z. Donahoe, collector
Of taxes for the Northern District Of the
city Of Wilmington, certain taxes as
sessed for the years 1898 and 1899 against
the complainant under the provisions Of
chapter 3S1, volume 20 of the Laws Of
Delaware, entitled "An Act to Equalize
Taxation for State and county Purposes"
and under the provisions Of chapter "a,
volume 81 Of the Laws of Delaware, en-
titled IAN Act to Amend Chapter 381,
Volume 20 Of the Laws Of Delaware en-
titled An Act to Equalize Taxation for
State and County Purposes" which said
taxes We're paid by the plaintiff under
protest. The plaintiff alleges that the
said two acts of assembly are inconsis-
tent with the provisions of the constitu-
tiUn of the State of Delaware adopted
in convention at Dover on the fourteenth.
day Of June, A. D., 1897. The defendant
n understands the contention of the plain
II tiff to be: First, that chapter 3S1, vol
ume 20 of the Laws of Delaware and
III chapter "a, volume n Of the Laws of
n Delaware are inc0nsstant with the pro-
M visions Of section Of article VIII Of the
- constitution which said section is as
M follows:
IN Section !. All taxes shall be uniform
n upon the same class Of subjects within
the territorial limits of the authority
ievying the tax, and shall be levied and
collected under general laws but the Gen
eral Assembly may by general laws ex-
empt from taxation such property as
IN the opinion Of the General Assembly
will best promote the public welfare.
Second. That chapter "a, volume 21
Of the Laws of Delaware is inconsistent
with the nrnyisions Of section 16 Of arti-
Gle III of the vorretst~t;v.. a-isis s1u-
\ tion is as fOllows:
Article ii, Section 16. No bill or joint
resolution except bills appropriating
money for public purposes shall embrace
more than one subject which shall be
expressed in its title.
1t is quite impossible to perceive in
what respect said two acts Of assembly
are inconsistent with the provisions OF
section Of article VIII Of the constitu-
tion. That the taxes provided for by
said two acts Of assembly are levied ant
collected under q general law is moi
questioned, but it is claimed, first, tina
they are not uniform upon the sam'
class OF subjects within the territ0ria
u limits Of the authority levying the ta'
by reason OF the fact that some securitie
are exempted and second, by reasol
M of the distribution of money arisin
therefrom between the city Of Whining
8 ton, the county Of New Castle, and tn
, State.
, Section 2 of the act Of 1897 provide
svhat securities shall be subject to taxs
4ton and what securities shall be e1
empted from taxation and the fact thu
= there may be certain securities whic
t are neither taxed nor exempted wOul
II M not render the said act unconstitutionu
/ The legislature has full power in j
h # discretion to select the subjects Of ta
d M alton. The rule Of uniformity reqnir
AN apportionment among all the su
jects Of taxation within the district; b
it does no require that every thing whi
the legislature might make taxable sh,
be made SO in fact. The constitute
requirements of an equality and III
formity only extends to such subjects
u. taxation as the legislature shall I
termine to be properly subject to
OF burden.
oy The power to determine the persC
RI and objects to be taxed is trusted
clusively to the legislative departme
le- This proposition is sustained by
on eases cited in the previous paragraph
wei as by the cases following: Cool
bv Con. Linn, Wilson vs.. Mayor etc.,
ne New York; People VS.. Coleman.
-. The rule as to uniformity and eqt
ity only requires n uniform rate VI
Ia" property of the same class throug
the district in which the particular ia.
10 levied.
OF The general rule as to uniformity
ers equality is not transgressed by ella
the tying property for the purpose OF tt
len tion and imposing different rate Of
the alton upon property of particular C
een or by making certain classes of prop
ms entirely exempt from taxation.
~ In this State the constitution has
the whole subject Of exemptions in
legislature. AS the General AsseI
represents the public all acts of
General Assembly are presumed t
for the promotion of the public wei
en' AS to what will best promote the p
4wefare the legislature is the final il
Do AZ and its discretion can not be revi,
tied by the courts. The language of Sc
nces Of article VIII means no more
more il it had said: "The legislature ma
ave empt such classes Of property as it
the see fit" Railroad VS.. Taylor count
~ Wis. 81.
Ate. The only additional suggestion by
plainant of conflict between
tiun ! of article VIII and the vt
e on Of 1898 is that revenues derived from
or two acts ore nat uniformnlly distri
next under the proyisions of section z {
king, net of 1898. in that the revenues d,
o do from Kent and Sussex counties ar
e as ,ributcd between those respective
ties and the State and the revenu
p the rived from New Castle county are
this huted between the State. New
county and the city of Wilmngto
city Of Wilmington receiving OIL
lof the revenue collected from III
Mary zens. 1t will be observed that SEE
lches Of article VIII does not require tn
law shall be uniform within tn
ritorial limit Of the authority ievyi