Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-03-19

sioners, 40 Ohio street 633, II l.. r. \.
795, the court decided that a county
could not be taxed to aid in building
in Daniels VS.. Columbus. SO Ohio street
65S; State vs.. kregbaum, "a Ohio
street els: Hubbard vs.. Fitzsimmons.
81 Ohio street 436.
In Indiana the constitution reads
THE General Assembly shall provide
by law for a uniform rate of assess
ment and taxation and shall prescribe
such regulations as shall secure a just
valuation for taxation of all property
In Jackson county vs.. Shields, 100
Ind. 604, it was held that special tax
on part of county on account OF
the relocation of the county seat was
illegal: that the county tax must be
uniform throughout the county and the
state tax throughout the state. The
decision overruled all earlier cases.
In Illinois. in Livingstone county Us.
Werden, 81 Ill., 421, the court held that
county tax to aid a State reform
school was void. The constitution
simply provided that. THE General
Assembly shall! provide for lcvying a
tax by valuation 50 that every person
and corporation shall pay a tax in pro-
portion to the value of his or her prop
erty."
In Florida the constitution provides
that The Legislature shall provide for
Il uniform and equal rate of taxation"
In Hilton ". Dickerson, 60 l.. r. a.
500, it was held. in the case of a state
arlnory that one county could not be
burdened more than other counties.
In Arkansas the
vides that. ''All property subject to
taxation shall be taxed according to
the valuation, 10 be ascertained in such
manner as the General Assembly shall
direct, making the same equal and uni
form throughout the state" In Hutch
inson vs. Ozark County Land Co. 81.
Ark. o54. held that one part of Il coun-
~ could not be taxed more than the
remainder of the county for a court
house The case discusses. quotes
from. approves and finds its governing
rule 70 law in Dyar ". Pennington
Village corpora:ion-thc court there
makes the same application Of the
Dyar case that log; cally should be
made in the matter now under discus
sion.
hold to the contrary. but in none OF
them does the constitution require
equal apportionrnent ard equal as
scSsment and all rest upon reasoning
held to be unsoulsl in our Maine cases.
In Merrick W. Inhabitants of Am
herst. II Allen 500 the court sustained
the power of the town of Amherst to
assess Il tax TO aid the State college.
The constitution provided that THE
Legislature shall impose proportional
and reasonable taxes" The court held
that the use Of TIN. word ''raaSora BILE
required them to decide that q very
large discretion was vested in the
Legislature as to tn way in which
the public burdens should be appor-
toned; that the constitution did
not require equality of apportion-
mont: that. therefore. it was COM
petcnt to put an additional burden on
any town or section if it derived
any special benefit from the institution.
1t is plain that this case has no applica-
ton to any of the questions here involv-
ed. The constitution permitted inequality.
If under the facts inequality was found
to be reasonable" The case has no
StitutiOn forbids Inequality.
In Gordon VS.. Cornes. Al \. Y. COS. an
act authorizing Il village to raise meme,
for the establishment of a state normal
school was held valid The constitution
contained nothing whatever in regard to
equality of taxation. The decision was
expressly put upon the ground that such
matters were left wholly to the discretion
Of the Legislature. The court said: 'Tha
constitution of some of our sister state;
contains special provisions designed to
guard against an unequita bic exercise of
this power and to secure equality in the
dirtrbution of public burdens but in this
state such restraint has not been deemed
necessary"
In Pennsylvania the court held in Kir-
by 80. Shaw, ~ Penn. St. rs that a local
tax upon a town for erecting a county
court house and Jail was valid upon the
express ground that at the time of tn
decision there was no provision in tho
constitution requiring equality of taxa
ton and that the Legislature was tho
sole Judge Of what constituted equality.
In Callam VS.. Saginaw. - Mich. Z. the
court held that while the Lerislatur,
Nohih ilJt COIip'l Il city 10 puma county
court house it could authorize it to do =,
il the city was willing. The constitution
said: The II legislature shall provide Il
uniform rate OF taxation" As Their con
Stitution contains no rule of equality of
apportionment. the case has no force in
Maine. Their decision that CITY might
assess taxes for a county purpose If the
inhabitants SO voted. is disposed of by-
judge Walton in the Dyar case where he
holds that the element of consent is i'm
material in Maine under our constitution
requiring equality of apportionment I'M
der all circumstances.
In the earlier cases in Wisconsin tho
rule prevailed "a now settled in Maine
but in Lund We. Chippena County, % Wis.
go. 81 L. Il. 13l, the county was perrnftt,I
to levy tax to aid n State Home for
the Feeble Minded. The constitution pro-
vided that The rule OF taxation shall he
uniform and taxes shall be levied upon
such property as the Legislature shall
prescribe 1t contained no rul" re1,Iir-
ing equality of apportionment. The court
laid great stress upon the element Of