Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-03-14


or where the provision is different from
that of Maine different rules obtain with
relation to objects for which taxes may
be levied.
Tho principle that taxes must be-
assessed equally and that the same per
son. and the same property cannot De
taxed for the same purpose by Two on
fcrent taxing authorities, and that no
particular portion of a state can DC taxed
more than another portion for the same
purpose is sustained in tie following
cases:
In Ohio the constitution provides tll;it
the Legislature shall establish laws Tor
tile taxing by uniform rule all moneys,
credits, etc, the obligation upon IL Is %
secure equality and uniformity by taxa
ton on all taxable property ms mas
been construed by the Court III WATSON
vs.. Commissioners. 40 Ohio G22; II l.. r.
A. 795. the case Of an agricultural expert
nenL station; Hubbard vs.. FltZslmmons,
81 Ohio State 1876; Daniels vs.. City OF Co
lumbus, IS Ohio State SIS, case of state
armorics; also 8 Ohio, c. g. GlS. Tn.
right to assess anything but state tax
Was derried.
In Indiana the constitution requires
uniformity and equality of taxation. and
the Court held in jackson County vs..
Shields 80 Ind COL that Il special tax on
the part OF Il county on account OF the
Relocation of the county seat is Illegal;
that the county tax must be uniform
throughout the county. and the tax must
be uniform throughout the state over
ruling a former decision. Ia Ind. 4IG.
In Illinois the constitution provides
1.-THE assembly shall provide for lcvyinis
taxes Ly valuation 50 that cvt'ry person
and corporation shall pay a tax III pro-
portion 10 the value Of its properly" In
constituting this the Court he'd in Liv-
in5ston County vs.. Werdcn, Gi Ill, At
that a tax on Livingston County on ac-
count Of a location Of q reform school
was illt gal and that bonds issued for
the purpose of raising money Ter such
object were void and in referring to the
offer made with the intent to obtain TIL"
location of the school, just as Portland
has offered half 4 million dollars t. OBJ
tain the location of a new state HouS"
| the Court said, IAN offer TO receive q
| donation for a particular locality to Sc
| cure its location seems inconsistent ana
| degrading to a state boasting of it
sovereignty its worth and its unbounded
| resources. This species of legislation has
not reflected honor upon the state no,
| should it,"
| This case may Seem to be apparently
| overrued by Livingston County vs.. Oar
! lington 1J1 L. S 407, but on careful ex-
| animation it will be seen that after the
| decision in GA Ill. it appeared that the
County had issued its bonGs which had
| passed into the hands of innocent hold
| ers for value, that the school had been
| built and was in operation. and that the
| Legislature passed an act providing thai
| the County might levy tax to pay the
bonds SO issued, and the United Statcs,
| court held that this was not an eX post
| facto law, that it enabled the county tn
| carry an obligation which, while not
legal was morally just ana proper, and
that the now legislation was valid.
| In Florida in tho case of q state armDry
! file Court Hold in Milton vs.. Dickinson
| g. r.. Il; a 80 that TAX can only be i'm
posed 1T a uniform and equal rate
| throughout the state. ana one cpunty
cannot bc buricgcd to the exclusion Of
| others. and BY way Of Illustration the
| opinion states mo doubt the location Of
| thC. cipiI2! at Tal'aEascc is beneficial in
| many ways to the people Of that state
and it is greatly to the welfare and pros
| pority of the state and county and | APP
pr, bend il would not lie maintained by
anyone that the Legislature could com
pei that city or county 10 pay for the
| improvements now being made upon tho
capitol"
| Ia, Arb ~ ti,r -
that tax must be levied at a uniform
| rate on all taxable property. and TIL,
| C3urt held in Hutchinson vs.. Oak Coun-
ty Land Company, y Ark. 81, that 0
greater tax on one part Of a county than
another for the establishment of a Court
was illegal.
| There are cases apparently to the con
trary but when carefully considered sus-
tain this rule of law
| Merric,1 vs.. Inhabitants of Amherst, l.
| Allen 500 This is the case cited by Judgt:
Mattocks in support of the Potldnd con
| tcntion. The constitution OF Massachrr-
| sets rule of taxation differs from the
| constitution Of Maine. While Maine rro-
vides for equal taxation, MasachuSctt. !;
provides only for reasonable and pro
! pOrtional tax and the Court said that
it was proper for the legislature TO
| assess taxes TO raise money in any par
| ticular town or section which may rca-
| sonahly be expected to derive more pr-
| cIlliar or special advantages, not enjoyed
| by other portions of the state to the
| same degree" The whole reasoning OF
| the case being that such assessment is
reasonable and proportional because such
district enjoys these extraordinary ad-
vantaEns.
| If the constitution of Massachusetts IS
| had provided that taxes should be levied
| equally according to the just value Of
| the property assessed the reasoning OF
the Court would not apply, and the de-
ciSions must have been different
In New York the Court held in Gordon
rs. Cornes, At n. Y. COS, that an act
authorizing a village to raise money for
! the establishment of a State Normal
! School was valid. The Court had no
doubt Of the correctness of the general
| proposition that tax should be assessed
equally. but said there was no provision
| OF the constitution preventing the I,egiS-