The White Pine news. [volume] (Ely, Nev.) 1906-1910, 1908-01-11

United States history They will
then take up in place of these courses
Latin and civil government.
tried first in police court and going
against him there, was appealed to
the district court. Judge Brown. in
giving opinion yesterday stated that
the license was in his belief a just
one and fully covered by the ordi-
nance which Zurich claimed was tech
nically defective. The opinion in part
is as follows:
The second and third subdivis-
ions of the demurrer, both being en-
titled two in the demurrer, go to the
constitutionality or legality of the
city corporation itself. first, that the
act of the Legislature is uneonstitu-
tional and that the same authorizes
the taking of lands into the incor-
porated limits of the city which are
absolutely without benefit by reason
of the city incorporation, and, sec
ond. that the city authorities had no
legal right to adopt and enforce any
ordinance. for the reason that the
city officers are illegally holding their
offices.
The first real objection made to the
complaint and to the ordinance 10
which it refers is that il does not
comply with the provisions of the
charter, which require that every or
dinance, excepting those revising city
ordinances, shall cover but one sub
iect, and must necessarily indicate
clearly the subject in the title The
ordinance shall be void as to matter
not so set out. as provided under
section 2G of the general incorpora-
ton act of 1907.
The courts are exceedingly liberal
tional PROVISIONS of this character
A great many state constitutions have
some provision of this character; in
fact, | believe that the constitution
of the state of Nevada contains a
provision that acts shall Contain but
one subject and matters properly
connected Herewith. There have
been stated in the case of Dunn VS.
Humboldt County. p New. rules
which | think are applicable as well
in the construction of ordinances UNI
der provisions of this kind as well
as in the construction of legislative
enactments.
As to the ordinance which we are
here considering, the title of the or
dinance is as follows. AN ordi-
nance providing for the licensing
taxation and regulation of sundry
businesses, occupations, trades and
callings within the limits of the city
lf rIxr faP nf y a tinn
for license and for the granting, re-
fusal or revocation thereof, and for
the collection of the license fees OF
taxes thereon as herein specified, foI
the regulation of the manner of con
Quoting and carrying on such bust
nesses and occupations; for the pun
ishment of any person or persons
firm or corporation violating any OF
the provisions hereof, or conducting
or carrying on any such business, oc-
cupation, trade or calling without
first paying said license fee or tax
and obtaining a license therefor
think the objection was made
practically TO each subdivision of this
title, that it showed a different sub
ject and also to the fact that the
ordinance embraced different sub
jects-the subjects of licensing, taxa
ton and regulation, and perhaps, al
though my memory is not clear on
that. the fact that the licensing, taxa
ton and regulation We're of sundry
businesses, occupations, trades and
eallings.
Cooley in his work on taxation rec
ognizes the right to tax attorneys;
he says that although il has been
questioned again and again and been
denied by courts in a few instances,
the great weight of authority is in
favor of the power of levying a license
tax upon attorneys. This power was
recognized by the supreme court of
the United States. and the court there
takes the view that the license tax
ON an attorney is not in the nature
or form of a permit to do business
but is an occupation tax for which
the license is merely receipt.
1t has been held in our own SUI
preme court that it is lawful to re-
quire a city license on trade in ad-
dition to county license. and that
power is recognized everywhere.
While it is true that the city may
derive more than one revenue out of
this thing-it may derive the county
license in addition to the city license
yet the two licenses are distinct,
are imposed by different authorities.
and IL does not seem TO me that the
licensees in this case can make any
objection to paying the city license
: