The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-02-23
The News of Mobile

the act of Congress, commonly known as the Wilson act. renders him liable. This act reads: That all fermented, distilled or other intoxicating liquors or liquors transported into any State or Territory or remaining therein for use. consumption, sale or storage there in, shall upon arrival in such State or Territory. be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or Territory enacted in the exercise of it's police powers. to the same extent and in the same manner as though such liquor or liquors had been produced not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original packages or otherwise.
 The above act makes intoxicating Ii- quors subject to State laws restricting and regulating the sale and handling of same, provided the laws purport to be and are in fact police regulations: If the license or tax Is for revenue, then the Wilson law has no application. Whether license is for revenue or a police regulation Is more a question of fact than a question of law, therefore the question to be decided is, is the 'li- cense tax" imposed by the city of Mo- bile an exercise of the police power or a license tax to raise revenue for the city? If the former. 1t can be en- forced under the Wilson act, notwith- standing the fact that the defendant Is engaged in interstate commerce.; if the latter, the Wilson act has no ap- plication, and the defense of the de- fendant is perfect under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States. The section of the City Charter (43) which gives the Gen eral Council of Mobile authority to levy license taxes, reads: That the said General Council shall besides the tax heretofore authorized have the author ity to assess and collect from all per- sons or corporations, trading or car rying on any business, trade or profess sion, by an agent or otherwise, within the limits of said corporation a license tax which shall be fixed and declared each year by ordinance of said corpor-
 The ordinance providing for the H. cense tax is: Be 1t ordained by the Mayor and General Council of the city of Mobile, that a license tax for the fiscal year beginning on the 18th day of March, 1904. is hereby imposed and assessed on each person, firm, corpor- trading or carrying on any business trade or profession by agent or other wise within the city of Mobile as follows" The ordinance levies a Occupations, trades and things and among these: 'Twenty-eight, brew cries, each person, firm, corporation. dealer, brewer. brewery. agent or handler for brewery selling beer by the barrel, half barrel or quarter bar rel, this clause not to include license for wholesale or retail vinous or spir- ituous liquors-$200.00. It seems that the charter empowers the city of Mo- bile to levy license tax upon any and all persons, whether it be a legitimate subject of police regulation or not. that the General Council in pasisng the li- ceuse ordinance had revenue alone in view, for 1t is hardly conceivable that they believed that the sale of beer in barrels, half barrels or quarter barrels required more police regulation than did the selling of beer at wholesale if the beer be but up in bottles, or that the sale of beer in barrels. half barrels or quarter barrels, required more po- lice regulation than did wholesale and retail dealers in all kinds of vinous spirituous and malt liQuors, other than rels. If we are to draw any inference from the amount of the license tax im- posed this would seem to be a fact; the license for wholesale liquor deal CTS. which includes all kinds of intox- icating liquors except beer in barrels. half and quarter barrels, is: Stock. $2,0O0 and under, SIS; stock $2.00l to $3.0O0, $100; stock $S,o01 and over, $125.
 Retail dealers in vinous, spirituous and malt liquors Gin certain defined limits) $150 in other parts of the city. $15. Retailing malt liquors (certain defined bounds). $50, all other places in the city, $30. Why should the whole sale liquor dealer who has a stock of $3.001 or over pay greater license tax than the one who has stock of $2,000 or under? For the same reason that the dry goods merchant who has a stock of $125,0O0 pays more than the one who has a stock of $5O.000; not that the one requires more police regulation than the other, but that the larger bus mess is able to pay more revenue to the city. The same reason applies to breweries. From the nature of the bus
 mess they must be large and rich cor porations doing large bushes and are able to bear considerable burden by way of license taxation.
 The Supreme Court of tho State of Alabama in the case of the City of Mobile vs. Craft, 94 Ala, p. 156, says: When the city ordinance imposed a special tax to retail cigars |" The Court after discussing the ques- tion as to whether the city could im- pose a license tax on a new business that was not taxed at the adoption If the then city charter. hold that the city could impose the tax and uses these words: ITO hold otherwise would re- strict the power of the General Council to assess and collect a license tax only upon such business as was being car passed, while all new enterprises or distinct business which had not been taxed would be relieved of this bur den." What burden? The burden of bile vs Richard 6 Sons 9S Ala, p. 594. where the defendant was proceeded against for doing business as a whole sale liquor dealer without having paid the license tax which was imposed by a general license tax ordinance, simi- lar to the one under discussion, the Supreme Court treats the ordinance IS a revenue measure and not as a police regulation, as is demonstrated by the following language: Tn view of the principle that the power of a munich pal corporation to tax must be clearly and unequivocally conferred by the 2tafa GmGnCh WaiUhf ahnlfId be given to the contention that the ordlnance) should be construed to mean that the authority to Impose li- cense taxes Is confined to those bus inesses, trades or professions which were taxed by the last ordinance on the subject; but that question came di- rectly before this court in the case of the City of Mobile vs. Craft & Co.,, S4 Ala, 156, and we then held that the provision of the charter mentioned did confer upon the municipality the pow CT to tax callings not taxed by virtue of said last ordinance and the question must be regarded as settled" Indeed we know that from the earliest his- tory of license taxation in this State, this business has been deemed a dis tinct one for the purpose of such tax ation, and 1t is common knowledge that payment of such taxes has universally been exaeted, for State. County and municipal purposes
 Tn the case of Goldsmith vs Hunts vile. l20 Ala. 1S4. the Court said: Tt is well settled. that the amount of tax authorized by tne constitution and laws of this state to be levied on prop