Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1901-05-23

The recent adverse judicial opinion
regarding the constitutionality OF tho
Adams Tax law act has naturally
created widespread interest, owing
to both the Importance Of the decision
and its probable consequences.
The objections to the act we're heard
in the Court in Bano by all the law
judges Of the State, comprising Chief
Justice Lore and Associate Judges
Spruance, Grub, Pennewill and
Boyoe. The opinion overthrowing the
act was rendered by the four first
named judges, Judge Boyoe alone dis
senting.
Although several objections to the
validity of the Adams Tax law were
presented at the argument, yet but two
were passed upon by the court. These
being deemed sufficient to dispose of
the case before it. Both turned upon
ths provision of section II of the
original act of 1897, and of section 2 of
the amending act Of 1898.
The act CT 1897 was entitled IAN act
to equalize taxation for State and
county purposes -
That OF 1898 was an act to amend
said act to equalize taxation. Said
section IL OF the original act provided
that OF the moneys collected under the
provisions Of the act one-fourth should
be paid to the State and the remaining
| three fourths to the county In which il
was collected,
Said section Of the amending act
Of 1898, provided as follows: "Amend
the said chapter 1.-THE act of 1897
by striking out all OF section II
thereof and inserting in lieu thereof
the following, viz: and then said
section Z provided that Of the moneys
collected by taxation of investments in
New Castle county, one fourth should
20 to the State, another fourth to New
Castle county, and the remaining one.
half to the city Of Wilmington.
1t was objected against the act that
this section was unconstitutional aud
void because The new distribution oi
one half of the taxes TO be collected
under it to the city of Wilmington wa
not expressed in the title Of the amend
ing act rs it was alleged, the Stat,
Constitution required.
All of the judges, including Judet
Boyce. were Of the opinion that thil
substitution provision of section wal
unconstitutional and void.
| p,,t L., fayaa ~ tho lap,a L.
it was urged on the other hand, thai
il said provision was uDconsti sutional
then the provision of the same sector
, Z striking outp and repealing section
~ OF the act OF 1897 was also unconsti
tutional, being part OF the sam,
section 7, and consequently that section
~ OF the original act and therefore tn
Adams Tax law itself, still continued
in force and unaltered by section o
the amending act
1t was upon this question only tina
] the court differed, four of them hold
!, ing-with Judge Boyce dissenting
that the repeating CLAUSE OF section
was not unconstitutional, but valid
and therefore that by its operation an,
effect. section IL OF the old law was re
pealed; and consequently the Adam
, Tax law was rendered imperative an
|. practically void. u.,.s.
!, AS this was purely legal and highl
! technical question, judges, qualified b
, life.lonG legal training and experience
!, are obviously better prepared than lay
men to decide it. AS four out OF th
: five law judges of the State have agree
upon the question, it is reasonable t
: assume that their view is correct an
will be conclusive.