Milford chronicle., 1922-02-24

all taxes shall be uniform upon the
same class of subjects within the ter
ritorial limits Of the authority leVying
the tax.
These grounds of objections will be
considered in the order in which they
are stated.
Paragraph 8 Section Is of Article
g. provides that the Tax Department
shall "pay monthly to the State Treas
urer all sums collected by the Tax
Department from the Personal Income
Tax or the Corporation Tax, or from
/ filing fees, &c." but it is argued that
the purpose for which it is raised, or
for which it is to be expended, is not
indicated
Under the second paragraph of Sec
| ton 35 of Article 8, it is directed that
"all taxes received under the opera
tions of this Act shall be usable for
the same purposes as are the taxes
now received under the provisions Of
the aforementioned Income Tax
Law"
We have already said that the fill
ing fee is a tax, and it is clear from
the Act that the revenue derived
therefrom, is, like other taxes collect
ed Hereunder, to be used or expand
ed for a public purpose, to wit, for
school purposes. The Section last
quoted requires that all taxes receiv-
ed under the Act shall be used for the
same purposes as taxes received un-
der the Income Tax Law then IN force,
which were school purposes. The rela-
tor claims that this provision is OF no
effect because the present Act repeal
ed the former Act. But it will be OBJ
served that it was provided by Sec
tion 35 that the law then in existence
should continue in force until Nov.
1. 1921, when it shall be repealed" )"
so that it was in force when the leg
islature directed for what purpose the
taxes received under the present act
should be used.
But independent of said Section 95,
the Act requires that the revenue de-
rived from filing fees shall be paid by
the Tax Department to the State
Treasurer. This is a sufficient indi-
cation that such revenue must be US
ed for school purposes. 1t could not be
used for any other purpose. The title
of the Act discloses that it was pass
ed ito provide revenue for school pur-
poses"
The relator's second objection is
based on the title of the Act, and nee
essarily fails if the filing fee is tax,
because in that case there is but one
general subject embraced in the Act,
viz: raising revenue for school pur-
poses, and that subject is expressed
in its title.
The REALTORS third ground is based
on the constitutional provision that,
the General Assembly shall provide
for levying and collecting a capitation
tax from every male citizen of the
State of the age of twenty-One and
upwards. His argument is that the
Constitution having provided that
such a tax shall be collected from
certain class, the legislature cannot
collect a personal tax from any per-
sons outside that class, such as resi-
dents who are not citizens, and min
ors having a net income of one thous-
and dollars or more.
In respect to this contention we
say, assuming that said section is
limitation on the power of the Legis-
lature, and prevents the collection of
a capitation or personal tax that is
not to be expended in the county in
which it is collected, the section does
not prevent the State from collecting
such tax from every citizen of the
age of twenty-One years and upwards. |
In fact, it directs that the Legislature
shall provide for levying and collect
ing such tax. But the section does not
provide that the tax collected in any
county shall be used exclusively in
that county, and we think, therefore,
that the moneys received by the Tax
Department from the filling fees"
must be expended in the county in
which they are collected.
The relatOr is a citizen above the
age of twenty-one years, and comes
within the class upon whom capita
ton can be imposed.
The fourth ground on which the re-
lator contends the Act is unconstitu- !
tional is based on the exemptions con-
tanned in Section of Article 1 viz: |
''Women receiving Mothers Pensions,
inmates of almshouses and other |
charitable institutions, persons re-
ceiving outside support from Trus-
tees of the Poor and persons who, be-
cause of age, infrmity or mental dis
ability, are wholly dependent for sup
port"
1t is argued that because of such
exemptions the Act lacks the unifor-
nifty required by the Constitution, and
is, therefore, void. Is such classiica-
ton of persons who are exempt from
making a return unreasonable, arbi-
trary and Illegal?
The relator in his argument cOnsid-
cred only that part of the exempted
class that are wholly dependent for
support by reason of age, infirmity or
mental disability, but we will con-
slider all the exemptions.
It is conceded we think, and must
be, that the act would not lack the
required uniformity if those exempt
were only such as are wholly de-
pendent for support. But it is insisted
hat when the Legislature limited that
class to such as are wholly dependent
oy reason of age, infirmity, or mental
disability, the classification became
improper, for the reason that there
are others wholly dependent besides
hose named in the act.
1t is manifest, when the exemptions
for are considered, that the
purpose of the Legislature was to ex-
,mpt from the operation Of the law
,nly those deserving persons who had
become dependent through no fault
# their own, that is, those unfOrtu-
late ones who were dependent, in
whole or in part, on account Of con-
litions beyond their control. And no
anguage could have been employed
Inn+ mould hattaI. eXnreSS that Dur-