The Columbus weekly dispatch., 1909-01-28
City Council Proceedings.
Columbus. Miss. Jan. s, 19

| were present E. S. Donnell, mayor,
and Council Weaver, Smell, Vaughan,
McClanahan. Moore and Steen.
The minutes of the January 4th
meeting were read and approved.
Maj. Battle Bell was before the
council in the matter of having the
drain ditch that runs along the north
ern boundary of the Bell Lumber
Company's plant, properly tiled, and
said that If the city would have the
work done his company would pay
half of the cost, and was assured the
matter would be given due consider
alton.
The following opinion of the city
attorney relative to the right of the
city to levy and collect a privilege
tax from persons soliciting laundry in
this city and sending same to another
city to be done up. was read and or
dered spread on the minutes:
columbus, Miss, Jan. s. 1909.
80 the Mayor and City Council of
the City of Columbus:
'GentIemen:-A Answering the sew
eral questions submitted TO me for
official opinion, 1 make reply as fol-
iows-to the:
list Has the city council the le-
gal authority to impose a tax upon
the privilege of carrying on, engaging
in or practicing any trade, business,
o-0foec;op ooa.Do+iop or oa1Ii1o IN
this city, which the State does not
tax? In other words, can the council
legally tax and license any trade, bus
mess, profession, etc, which is not
taxed and licensed by law as embrac-
ed in the code, chapter ia, on Priv
tlege Taxes or the laws mandatory
thereof?
II answer the above question un-
hesitatingly in the Affirmative, and
for my authority I cite subdivision
nine 60 of section "a of the city
charter, the first sentence of which
contains the authority. 1t reads:
TO levy and collect taxes on all priv
leges taxable by the laws of this
State, and upon the privilege of car
rying on, engaging in or pTacticing
any other trade, business, profession,
occupation or calling in said city, and
to license, tax and regulate every pro-
fession, trade, occupation, business,
calling or means of living which may
be practiced. engaged in or followed
by any person or persons in said city
The only limitation prescribed is:
That the tax imposed upon privileges
which are taxed by the laws of this
State shall not exceed fifty per cent.
of the State tax on the same privi-
lege'
"To the
'2nd. Has the council the legal
authority under the charter of the
city above cited to impose a privilege
tax on agents for 1aundries located
outside of the State? In other words,
would such tax be in conflict with
and in violation of the commercial
clause of the federal constitution?
''My answer is. that the Council has
such right and that its exercise would
not be in contravention of the inter
state commerce clause of the federal
constitution. In support of this opin-
ion 1 rely on and cite section 257 ct
seq. of the recently issued work, en-
titled 'McQuiIlin Municipal Ordi-
nances.' 1t holds, and gives the rea-
son why, agents doing business in a
State for laundries located in another
State may be taxed, VIZ, The making
of such contracts is held to be a mere
incident of the business transacted,
and not commerce in and of itself.
And it cites as authority for such
Smith VS.. Jackson, 103 Tenn. Al, L.
r. A 416. The facts of this last case
are 'on all fours With those presented
by your quest;ors, and it holds that
an agent of a laundry in one State
who collects garments and sends
and laundered, and afterward rede-
livers them to their owners, is not |
engaged in commerce so as to be pro- |
tected against the privilege tax i'm |
posed on his occupation
BEARD, j., in delivering the opin-
ion of the court in Smith VS.. Jack |
son, supra, cites Paul VS.. Virginia, S /
Wall 168, and says: Said laundry /
contracts, like those made by resi- /
dent agents representing insurance
located in another State, |
are simply personal contracts, based |
On a valuable consideration having /
no element of a commercial transac-
ton falling within the protection of /
The commerce clause of the federal 1
The case, says Beard,
T is clearly distinguished from that