Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1922-02-03
o FlllNo Fgg LAW
6EFoRE THE COURT
Continued Arsm pass l

Attorney General Townsend opsnsd
for the state and went into IN e.
haustivs hi1ory Of the educational
system Of the state. Thia tee 10 con-
nscted with the school system ot the
state, - the moneys secured from the
payment Of the fee 10 to BE- applied
to the operation Of the schools Of the
state.
prior to = few years ago. tho at
tornsy general salds the various school
districts levied they own school tax.
But. he said. when tho School Code
was passed several years ago. this
power WAS taken from the district
and tho state took over this power.
state hopcs to secure funds for the
maintenance OF the schools of the
State.
Constitutional, Townsend Holds,
Tho at,orney-general said that it
In immRteriaI whether the act In a
revenue measure. an exercise OF tho
police power or mere regulatory
measure and that no matter which OF
these Il is. the act In constitutional
and tho petition should be dismissed.
The many changes In the school
system OF the state were gone Into
by the attorncy-ecnersl. He discuss
"a the changes from tho plan OF hav-
Ing county superintendents to that OF
having n state superintendent. He
said that the educational system has
never been connected with the county
/
revenue systems. IN the state--Statc,
county and the school. which latter
war Administered by tho school dis
tricts.
what Constitution Ways.
section 3 of article 10 as follows:
"The General Assembly shall provide
kor ievying and collecting a capitntior
tax from every male citizen of the
state of the age OF II years OF up
wards, but such tax TO be collected ir
any county shall be uniform through.
out that county: and such capitatior
tax shali be used exclusively in the
county In which IL is collected"
Law Attacked.
MIR, Kcedy replied FOR tho petitioner
and said that the fee is a capitatior
or poll tax and that the method o
raising and not the, purpose fo'
which Il Is TO be used is what deter
mines tho nature OF tho tax.
His FIRST ground attacking the con
-titutionality is that the Leeislatur
can provide revenue for public pur
poser only. His second ground wa
that no tax can be levied except 70
: public use. He further contended tha
,hcr~ Is nothing in the income Ia,
\ corporation tax, or fling fee Pre-
Z visions for the uses TO which the
foe can be applied. The act doc
provide. he said, for distribution {
I taxes. hut does not mention the al
position Of the fling fee moneys.
Mr.. keedy said in his reply, the
the people q the state were not ar
,prised on this subject. and that
they had. the measure would INC
have had a ghost OF chance {
passing He said the court shoul
have its ear 20 public sentiment.
Mr. Townsend objected TO this "ar
peal to the press" as he called
and jumped to his fsst, declaring ths
the argument was IN Insult to IN
tcourt. Mr.. Ke~fy replied no insu
wAA intended. and resumed hie dis
c'usson. He sAid the people Of IN
, state realized In a general scnss. ths
an income tax measure was be.n
| passed. but he said they did not renlii
! about tho films fee provision.
Mr.. Keedy contended that the mea,
lurs was unconstitutional. in that the,
: were sxomptions, under the applies
ton of the IS niing fee Section.
contended that in the fling of tho IL
come TAX return, each person was r,
auired to pay the IS. lie said the dui
10 pays1hs tar did not arise. until II
return s filed. Under this, he sal
minors were not required TO nle
return.
The Attorney General was asked
furnish authorities on the poir
whether tho classification of peop
exempt 10 a proper one to make, VIII,
others may be wholly dependent.
f,,