Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-03-19
rllG-20- 21-o2-a3- 80. %

manifest that The case has no application
whatever to the rule of our constitution.
In the discussion before the committee
on public buildings and grounds. in the
s. nate and in the press. the city Of
Portland has relied wholly on the views
OF Cooley in his work on taxation.
On page 300. Judge Cooley said: For
q single locality to assume to tex itself.
or if a state were to undertake to tax
il for the construction of 4 state work
or the erection of a state building, no
ore would hesitate for a moment in say
irg there was no such right, and there
coul,, be none as long as taxation by the
Fundamental law is required to be laid
by fixed rules not subject to the caprice
of Legislative bodies.
Eut on page $40, he said that as to the
burdens of the state at large there may
he peculiar reasons why a part of the
public should bear 4 greater proportion
of the burden. He said. further: "A
pertinent illustration might be the case
Of Il taxation for the construction of a
state capitol. 1t would be clear We should
say that such a tax should be spread
over the state at large. but it is also
apparent that the people and the prop
erty at the place whore the structure j.
proposed to be constructed would rcceiv.
special and probably very great benefits
in consequence of the construction be
yond what they would receive in common
with all others. This fact is even recos
nZed in the voluntary contributions made
by people to secure such locations but
tile question then arises whether theSr
tax benefits may not constitute n basis
for snccial taxation. To make them such
it would be necessary that Their" should
be two tax districts: one embracing tie
whole state. the other embracing only
that district which was 50 peculiarly hen
c.ited as to justify the exceptional bur
d.n. In such n case tie people within
the minor district would contribute twicn
to the same burden. but this, though ap-
rlrently a violation Of the principle Of
tnyation, is not 50 in fact if the cstab-
liShment of the minor district is one with
equality and justice in view, and each
taxpayer is only required to pay what
as between himself and the rest of the
state is found to be his just proportion
of Il burden which distributes its benefits
uncuually."
For authority Judge Cooley relied
on the PENNSYLVANIA case already cit
cd in this argument where tie cont
stjtution contained no rule and the
court held the Legislature. therefore
could do as it pleased and three cases
in Indiana since overrIcd. He quoted
at length from the Amherst College
case saying it was a most satisfactory
synopsis Of his views, overlooking the
fact the Massachusetts Court express
ly decided that their constitution per-
mitted an unequal apportinnnent or
account Of the u.s. of the word req
sonable."
Judge Cooley gives simply his own
views. His cases have no application to
the peculiar rule in our Constitutions
1t is q novel proposition for a lawyer
TO claim that the personal views of an
author can overrule q decision Of the
courts of Maine.
Judge Cooley adn,;ts: that TIE pco-
lie in the minor district would contrib
ute twi.c t" the same hurd"n. Oar
court he'd that this necessarily produr-
"a the inequality OF aprortioumcnt f0r-
hidden by our constitution. Il provision
found ~ no othc, constitutions Jud,et.
Cooley defends his personal views by
&
corStifut" q hlSiS for special taXattGn
They may i'll some states. whore tie I
Constitution is silent or i Na4Stt hll-
sets where inequality Of a,portion-
ment is permitted nv the CONSTITUTION.
OF IN Wisconsin Whe"r there il; nothing /
in the constitution requiring equality ,
Of apnoGtionmc:.t. but the crucial cuo.- |
ton here *. i'll special benefits Dor
nit constitutional lax in Maine wharn /
the Constitution expressly commands
Of app0rtonment a. we'll as /
Of assessment.
We have nothing whatever to do with |
OF taxation. The question |
here is che Of constitutional ~llins |
Judge Cooley admits that his doctrine !
is apparently q violation Of the prin |
ciples of taxation. Judge Cooley was /
discussing nothing hut a Theory ana in |
no way undertaking to construe tie !
Constitution of q state expressly forbid
ding uGcqUal airport ipr.:~ei2t rr;'e. Ill .
| ~ i;1,St"};ttS.
IN Try;tv ~. Farni?--.an Village Cor- /
para;ioa it was expressly decided thai /!