Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-03-19
CAPITAL REMOVAL.
Continued from Page One.)

renders the proceeding unconstitution-
al" A like result follows here. In tax
ang Portland to meet it's proposed
bonds, the remainder of the State is
exempt from the gross burden to that
uextent.
In his emphatic language. Judge Wal
ton pointed out the consequences of an
opposite construction. He brushed away
the idea that the rule rested in any way
on the units OF town and village cor
poration. He said if competent to i'm
pose such a tax upon the village, it
could be put on ore parcel Of land.
That consent of the voters was imma-
terial. He said: THE Constitution does
rot place their property at the dispos-
al of their neighbors." He extended the
rule to taxation for any public pur-
pose (See page 523). He ernphatically
declared that the inherent vice of the
proposition was the inequality. That
no tax could be levied for the same
purpose where one piece OF properly
might bear a greater portion than the
remainder of the unit.
He said-"It (the objection to such
taxi rests upon the want OF conStitu-
tional power in the Legislature. through
any agencies. or by any means. to Gre
ate such an inequality of taxation. Such
a power would be the full equivalent
OF q power to confiscatc. Private prop
xerty wound no longer be under the pro-
Mection OF the Constitution, il could
only be held at the pleasure of the Leg
islature.'
The opinion sustained the Pennsylva-
MIA rule in Hammett vs.. Philadelphia
g. Pa. st. lA6. tina. the Legislature. with
out them, could not authorize a lhunici-
pality to levy a local tax for general
purposes. and the same rule in Mcc"r
mick vs. Patchcn. 81 Mo. o.. where the
court said such law would be an act
OF confisCation.
Judge Walton further said ''simil;.r
expressions in condemnation Of the at
tempts which have been made from
time to time I" inIpos" local taxes for
public purpose could be multiplied Il
most Indefinitely
No one can state the point decided in
his opinions better than Judge Walton
himself. master as he was Of clear
English. He stated the rul. decided as
follows:
J. The result Of al the CASES i that
a local tax by which term is meant a
tax assessed upon a com nuuity on ter
ritory which is less than that on which
the general assessment for other public
purposes is niadc) cannot be made for
a public purpose: because. rs already
stated. such a power would he the full
equivalent of 4 power to cOnfiscatt:
which, in this country is nowhere con-
ceded to the Legislature. not even IN
those states where there are no conS!i-
tutional limitations upon the taXiIg
power. 4 fortiori. such 4 power cannot
exist, where. as in this state. there j.;
an express limitation upon the taxing
power of the Leg isla ture. intended to
guard against tn" possibility Of such
oppressive leg islatiOn."
And. on page 52s-.The Constitution
will not allow such special taxation
the taxation Of selected aud limited
portions of territory FOR &c public pur-
pose"
To apply Judge Walton's own state
nent of the rule decided. The enabling
act proposes a local tax in Portland
for a state purpose. Portland is 4 COM
munity less than that ON which the
general TAX for the new Stat" House is
to he asst sed. Being local tax for
general purposes. it is void. Tic an
portiOnment Of the State burden i I'M
equal. No power exists. ~ judge, W%l-
ton holds with or without the consent
of tho voters of Portland. 20 levy Su Ii
tax. If the Dyar clS" is still law. no
bonds can be issued or il issued their
payment. even after sale. must be On
Joined.
The Dyar case was recently affirmed
in Mayo vs.. Village Fire Co. 90 No.
55i. decided in 1902. in an opinion drawn
by Chief .iustic" Wiswcll and concur
red in by all the sitting Justices. White
house. Savage. Powers, Peabody and
Spear. The village corporation claimed
power to assess a tax to support Il syS-
TEN of water works to supply the resi-.
dents in the village and a few takers
outside the village. Mr.. EJknr argued
that such a tax would be illegal be
cause it would he laid on a limited ter
ritory to pay for benefits common to a
larger territory from which the prop
.,erty SO benefited lying outside the ter
ritGry taxed would be exempt and
therefore in violation Of the constitu-
tiOnal provision now under discussion.
replied that under the proof tho bur-
den of taxation upon the property in
The village would not be Increased to
any extent whatever Tho court so
found the facts. Sec page 500
%, Referring 10 the Dvar case, tic court
said. y. 5JI--'The correctness of this
decision cannot be questioned. The leg
iSlation ia that case. and the action OF
the corporation under it. not only per
mtted but made unequal taxation in
evitabc." The court affirmed the rule
that ullenal taxation. however caused.
was Unconstitutional and Void.
The rule in Maine. therefore. is clear.
long settled and recently affirmed b.
five judges now upon the bench. and
again affirmed ny a unanimous rnur;
July I. 1908 in Opinions of the justices.
81 Me. 591. where seven Of the present
= court concurred, Judge Woodland not
9+ahen being n member.
The rules may be stated
I. Taxation for Il State House is ]
general public purpose.
;. Taxes Tor general public purposes
must be assessed by the State upon all
tthe taxable property of the state.
=, No smaller part of the Stale pH n