The Wilmington daily Republican., 1901-03-27
ADA MS TAX
ARGU MENT'


Peter l.. Cooper. Jr., Of counsel for the
afternoon said i'll part: This. is an ac-
ton in assumpsit brought by the Eluit-
able Guarantee and Trust Company to
recover from John p. Donuhoe, collector
of taxes for the Northern District OF the
city of Wilmington, certain taxes AS
sCSscd for the years 1898 and 1899 against
the complainant under the provisions Of
chapter 3Sl, volume 20 Of the Laws of
Delaware, entitled An Act to Elualize
Taxation for State and county Purposes
and under the provisions Of chapter "a,
volume u Of the Laws of Delaware, en-
titled An Act to Amend Chapter 3S1,
Volume 20 of the Laws Of Delaware en-
titlcd An Act to Equalize Taxation for
State and County Purposes which said
taxes were paid by the plaintiff under
protest. The plaintiff alleges that the
said two acts of assembly are mconsis-
tent with the provisions of the constitu-
ton of the State of Delaware adopted
in convention at Dover on the fourteenth
day Of June, a. d., 1897. The defendant
understands the contention of the plain
ti1 to be: First, that chapter 3S1, vol
ume 20 of the Laws of Delaware and
chapter "a, volume u of the Laws of
Delaware are inconsistent with the pro-
visions of section / of article VIII of the
constitution which said section is as
follows:
Section 1. All taxes shall be uniform
upon the same class of subjects within
the territorial limits of the authority
lerying the tax. and shall be levied and
collected under general laws but the Gen
eral Assembly may by general laws eX-
rmpt from taxation such property as
III the opinion of the General Assembly
will best promote the public welfare.
Second. That chapter "a, volume Il
of the Laws of Delaware is inconsistent
with the provisions OF section 16 of arti-
Gle III of the constitution which said sec
tion is as follows:
Article III, Section 49, No bill or joint
resolution except bills approprnting
money for public purposes shall embrace
mere than one sLbJecl which shall 10
expressed in its title.
II is quit" impossible to perceive in
what Respect said two acts Of assembly
are inconsistent with the provisions of
section l of article VIII of the constitu-
tion. That thr taxes provided for by
said two acts Of assembly are levied and
collected under Il general law is not
questioned, but it is claimed, first, that
they are not uniform upon the same
class of subjects within the territorial
Limits of tho authority lcvying the tax
hy reason Of the fact that some securities
ar" exempted and, second, by reason
of the distribution of money arising
thrrrirum between the city Of Whining
ton, the county Of New Castle, and the
State
Section Of the act Of 1897 provides
what securities shall be subject TO taxa
ton and what securities shall be eX-
cmpt"d from taxation and the fact that
there may be- certain securities which
are neither taxed nor exempted would
not render the said act Unconstitutional.
Th" legislature has full power in its
discretion to select the subjects of tax
alton. The rule Of uniformity requires
an npporionmtnt among all the sub
J"ctS Of taxation within the district but
II does no require that every thing which
III" legislature might make taxable shall
be made 50 i'll fact. The constitution
requirements Of an equality and uni
lornIitl only extends to such subjects Of
taxation q, the I"gsuturr staiI de
trrnun' To be property subject to the
burden.
ia" power to determine the persons
81 t,l,I
cluSINuly To til" legislative department.
This proposition is sustained by the
eases cited i'll the previous paragraph AS
wet as hy III" cases following: Cooley.
C"u Linz, Wilson vs.. Mayor ETC., of
New York, People vs.. Coleman.
III" rll" aS to uniformity and equal.
ity only rwiIcS Il uniform rate upon
property of the same class througuut
th" district il which The particular tax is
lrvi"d
In" general rule Ms to uniformity and
equality Is not trdnSgr"sS'd by clASSi-
iNIig Ir"U"rlE for The prrpus" of taxa
il"n and imposing Il different rate Of tax.
a'l"n upon property Of It particular class
oI 10y making certain Glasses of property
entirely exempt from taxation.
In This Stat" the constitution has left
tho Whole subject Of exemptions in the
lr@i>iatu", As the General Assembly
represents the publ" all acts of the
General Assembly ar" presumed 10 be
for IL" promotion of the public welfare.
AS To what win best promote til" public
w"lfHr" th" legislature is the final Judge,
ana ITS discretion can not be- reviewed
10y III" courts, The language of SECTION
! 1T nnirI" VIII means no more than
| If il had said: "1h" lcgi,laiur" may cX.
'mpl such 'Ia>s"S Of property as it may
So lit liai!rond vs.. Taylor county. :!
Wis 81.
The only additional suggestion hy com
| pIninant of conflict hrtwcrr sec.
ti"n Of arrirI" VIII and tho statute
Of l>'S is that revenues derived from said
! 'w" acts ar" not unirormally distributed
| nudrr th" provisions of section of the
act Of lA'S, in that the revenues derived
| from kcnt and SussrA counties are dis
| 1iihutcd h"iWr"n those respective coun
| ties ana the stat" and the revenues de-
| rived from New Castle county are diStri
| hut"d h'Iw"cn the State. New Castl,
| ''"'i'' "'" 'H' city Ol W IlhllngIhh, th'
| city of Wilmington receiving onchalI
| Of III" r"y"ru" collected from its citi
| 2ouS. It will h" observed that section
of article VIII does not require that III,
| law SHAH he uniform within the ter
rttorial liulil Of the authority lcvying III,
taN. hut thai "All taxes shall be uniform
| upon the same class Of Subjects" Poo
| pl" vS. Central Pacific r. Il.
In this State the constitution has l"r
th" whole subject of exemption in tn,
discretion Of the legislature. As III,
General Assembly represents the public
all acts of til" General Assembly arc prr
Snm"d TO be for the promotion of th,
public welfare as to what will best pro
mote tho public welfare, the lcg~atur,