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

Haskell, StrOut, Savage and FOSler all
the sitting justices. 1t was there held
that it meant, AN equal apportion-
ment and assessment upon all proper
ty. real and personal, according to the
just value thereof" And that. "All
property which is the subject of taxa
ton under the authority Of the state
| must bear its just and due proportion
of the burden thereof"
No case i'll any other state is in con-
fict with the rule of the Dyar case
that the inequality of apportonmcnt
exists where one community is per-
mitted or required TO contribute to thu
same public purpose more than the
public of which it is a part. No case
can ever arise to conflict with the
Dyar case for no other state has a
constitutional limit requiring equality
of apportionment and also equality OF
assessment
Inc Dyar case meets all the require
ments of the rule Of stare dccisis.
l. The Legislature passed Il special
act authorizing the village corporation
to issue bonds for railroad in the viii
laSc, public purpose. Here, an act
is sought to authorize a city to issue
within its limits, a public purpose.
:. The property in the village was
part of larger community. the town,
and subject to taxation by the town FOR
the same public purpose. The prop
erty i'll Portland is part of a larger
community. the State. and subject to
taxation by the State for the same
public purpose.
.. The village corporation argued
that as the town had passed no vote
to aid til" railroad there was no in
equality of apportionment The court
decided that tho bare fact that The
town had the power to levy Il tax to
AID the railroad was sufficient to create
IN" inequality of apportionmcnt for
Dducn bN the constitution. saving
me question is one of power. not
now inc power shall be exercised"
ruilhG mat the power in the larger
community excluded the power in the
smaller. Here. Portland admits that in
addition to the power of taxation il
seeks for itself. the State not ONLY has
the power to assess a tax upon an the
property of tho State but that the
state must assess such Il tax. The
- l.
tcntiOn.
=. The decision cuts deeper Than
iuies OF IL" governing villages ana
to"hS. IN" court, in terms, declared
that the basic principle was the fact
that a lesser community or territory
was without power to lcvy.a tax if the
larger community Orterritory. Of which
ny, ..e lesser vas part. had the
pare power to tax the whole for the
same public purpose. The court said.
me objection is to the end: to the in
eGu2ht Of taxation for public pur
POSES thereby produced. not to the ma
chlhery by which it is ACCOMPLISHED
1t further said that suth 4 mower If
permitted would be the full enuivalart
OF power TO conliscatc. Here. Port
iahh is the smaller community. q part
or the larger community. the State.
The legal parallelism is perfect.
.. The village corporation Contended
that lnaSmuch as special benefits would
accrue 20 the people in the village nv
having the rai!iOad in its midst great
er IN degree team would be enioyed by
the town as whole. there was in fact
no inequality of apportionment The
court "Verruled this contention upon
TWO grounds. First, the fact that the
larger community had the power to tax
TOT the same purpose necessarily ex-
cilded all such power in the smaller.
and. second. that special benefits rey-
er authorized an unequal apportion-
hlent OF taxes levied for public pur-
poses. Here. Portland argues that spo-
cal benefits accruing from State
douse IN that city justify IN unequal
apportionmcnt of the burden of OBJ
tanning a new State House. The rule
IN the Dyar case is a perfect parallel
3. In the Dyar case the court held
that il the village tax was sustainable.
1t would be competent to authorize the
Continued on Page Seven.)
Nj.