Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1901-03-28
ADAMS INVESTMENT LAW.
Tho Question of Its Constitutionality ~
being Argued, f-s4

4 uebuHy IN Inb Case Involving tnb Queb-
tion Of the constitugionality Of the
Adams law for the taxation OF invest
ments. In this case, tho State, county
and city are interested, because under
the act the money collected was to be
divided among them, and because by
reason OF the litigation, good deal OF
the money collected is tied up in bans
and large quantity OF the tax assessed
has never been collected.
All five Of the judges. Chief Justice
Lore and Associate judges Spruancp.
Grub, Pennewill and Royce, we're on
the bench. The case is that OF the
Equitable Guarantee and Trust o.,
trustee under the will of Allen Y.
Leslie, decreased, vs.. John r. Donahoe,
collector of taxes OF the Northern dis
trict Of Wilmington hundred, The
plaintiff Is represented by Willard
Salisbury and Anthony Higgins, and
tho defendant by Peter L. Cooper, on
behalf OF the State John II. Rodney,
on behalf OF the county and Henry @.
Conrad, On behalf OF the city.
The suit was brought by the plaintiff
to recover from the defendant certain
money collected by tho defendant from
the plaintiff under the Adams tax law.
2 he amount was S156. 20. A case stated
was agreed upon to settle the constitu.
tionality Of the law, 10 which msny
corporations and individuals are inter.
ested.
In opening the case, MIR. Salisbury
rehearsed the history OF the legislation
for the purpose OF taxing inye tments,
the first act entitled, IAN Act to
Equalize Taxation for State and
County Purposes" having beenSpassed
May Goth, 1897, and amendatory acts
In 1897 and 1893. In tho latter year the
Legislature provided that all the acts
should be printed in the laws for that
year. On account Of the fact, that
sneak" acts had been passed by the
Legislature at one time and another
provision was made by the new Consti-
tuition that every act must be on one
subject only which must be- expressed
In its title; and Mr. Salisbury held
that tho laws in question are unconsti-
tutional and void by reason of failing
to comply with the Constitution on
that point.
Ia their statement OF the case, hlessrs
Salisbury and Higgins contend that
the taxes collected from the trust COM
pany by the defendant we're illegally
sxacted because, first, the acts of as.
sembly recited purporting to authorize
the collection thereof were unconstitu.
tional, null and void, and because,
second, the taxes assessed for the year
1898 were not assessed according to law.
In their brief the plaintiffs laid
down several propositions which Mr..
Salisbury discussed at length. Under
the claim that the acts in question are
unconstitutional, null and void. thew
say 1.-The act of 1897 being admittedly
imperative without the support OF the,
amending act OF 1898, the whole law,
republlshed as amended as charter rs.
Vol. Xxi, Laws Of Delaware, page As,
must fall OF the act Of 1893 be in conflict
with the Constitution OF 1917
And they hold that the original acts
provided for the equalization of taxes
for State and county purposes, but
that the act Of 1893 provided that the
city OF Wilmington should also have a
share OF tha money, namely, one half of
the amount collected therein; Ia other
words that the title of the act DOES not
properly convey the subject matter
thereof and is unconstitutional.
In dwelling upon the advisability OF
the constitutional provision of having
an act on only one subject and il OK
pressed in the title, Mr.. Salisbury said |:
| ~ ~ ob1tiJ EuOuliud buhl dL lHB emu
OF our former legislative sessions ID has
not been unusual to Introduce bills
for the incorporation of important
companies or the amendment OF our
general laws under the guise Of acts to
preserve muskrats or exteI inmate peach
yellows, and where the court refors to
the inclusion OF more than one subject
in the same bill as being an evil, it
especially fits the case of the amend
ment to the Adams Tax bill for it is
we'll known that the provision that the
CITY OF Wilmington should have one
bali OF the tax raised within the
municipality was only inserted after
all else failed to secure the necessary
vote from Wilmington Senator, which
gave it majority in its final passage
through the Senate, and that this ma
iority could not have been obtained had
that clause not been inserted
Further Mr.. Salisbury held that
THE fact that the original act re
ferred to in the title of the Amendment
was passed prior to our new Constitu.
ton will not aid in the effort to make
the amending act constitutional for
where the subject Of an amendatory act
is not embraced In its title, the fact
that the original act was passed before
the adoption Of the Constitution when
the title was of no significance IN deter
mining the validity of an act, does not
render tho amendatory act constitu-
tioral.
mot only is the title Of the act
defective and therefore unconstitutional
because it fails TO mention municipal
taxation in its title, Eut the title Is
deceptive, false and misleading in
another RESPECT, namely:
1T Is said To be an act to eaualize
when the provision of the amending
act of 1898 only produces inequality in
taxation in New Castle county, com.
polling, as it does, Citizen OF rutal
New Castle to contribute three times
AZ much for county government as is
required of citizen of Wilmington.
The Act of 1897 and the ACT OF 1898
are unconstitutional, null and void,
because they are In violation OF section
j, article ) OF the Constitution of 1897,
in that the taxes laid are not uniform
upon the same class Of subjects within
the territorial limits of the authority
levying the tax.
THE provision in the Act Of 1898
alloting une half of the tax on invest
ments raised in the city of Wilmington
to the city government is uuconstitu.
tional and opposed to the constitutional
provisions OF article s, section l, for
the reason that the provisions that
taxes shall be uniform within the terri
torial limits of the authority levying
4