Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1922-02-17
COURT HOLDS THAT FILING FEE
SECTION OF STATE INCOME TAX
STATUTE IS CONSTITUTIONAL
Opinion Handed Down Today in Action Brought BY Charles
n Ryan, Who Sought to File His Return Without Pay
ing the s. Fee Required by Law; Case Considered by
All Five Law Judges, Whose Opinion Is Final

vide for levying and collecting a capt.
tation tax from every citizen OF the
state OF the axe OF twenty-one years.
and upwards: but such tax TO be
collected In any county shall be UNI
form throughout the county. and such
capitation tax shall be used exclusive
ly in the county In which II isi collect
ed"
The grounds relied on by the reletor
may be summarized as follows:
A. IL does not appear from the
act that tho revenue 20 be derived
from the fling fees Is to be used for
public purpose.
II. That IL said filing fee is not
n tax. the Act embraces more than one
subject. one OF which IL not expressed
In its title.
G. The fling fee. IL a tax, Is i'm
posed on persons other than citizens
~ tho age of twenty-one years and
upwards, TO wit. on residents who are
not citizens, and minors with a net
income Of ono thousand dollars or
more.
ID. The filinK fee. II q tax. is not
uniform within the meaning OF said
Section 8. Article OF the Constitution.
and of Section | OF Article s OF the
cons'itution which provides that all
take. shall be uniform upon the same
class OF subjects within the territorial
limits OF the authority lcvying the
tax
The REALTORS second objection Is
based on the title OF the act, and
necessarily fall. II the fling fee r. q
tax. because In that case there is hu,
one general subject embraced In the
act, VIZ. Raising revenue for school
purposes. and that subject is express
ed I'm It's title.
The REALTORS third ground IL ha .ed
on the constitutional provision tina,
the General Assembly shall provide
Tor levyips and collecting n capitatior
tax from every male citizen OF the
State of the age OF twenty-one and
upwards.
In respect TO this contention We
say. assuming that said section Is q
limitation on the power OF the I.esis.
laturc. and prevents the ~ollection O,
csritauon or personal Nax that i,
not 10 be expended in the county ir
which IL IL collected. tho section does
no, prevent the state from collectins
such tax from every citizen of tn,
ase of ,weuty-one year. and upward 8
The fourth ground on which tn,
relator contends the act IL uncon-titu
tional Is based on the exemption,
contained IN Section 6 of Article
viz; Women receiving Mothers Pen
sions. inmates OF almshouses an,
other charitable Institutions. per
sons receiving outside support from
Trustees OF the Poor and persons who
because OF Rge, inarmity or mcnta
disability, are wholly dependent 70
support"
IL such assifcation OF persons VIII
are exempt from making "A return un
reasonable arbitrary and Illegal, Tn
rclator IN his argument considere
only that part of the exempted clas
that are wholly dependent for supper
b, reason OF axe. infrmity or menta
disability. hut we VIII consider all n
exemptions.
~ IL manifest. when the exemption
provided for are considered. that tn
purpose of the Legislature was I
exempt from the operation of the la,
only those deserving persons who hal
become depende,, through no faul
~ their own, that is. those unfortunat
ones who were dependent. in whole O
IN part. on account Of conditions be
Nond their control. And no languag
could have been employed that woul
better express that purpose.
II was not intended that person
should he exempt who had become de
pendent by reason OF Incidence. reclS
iessness or other cause for whicl
they were themselves responsible.
After careful consideration Of tn
net in question in it's application I
he relator. and The particular ground
npon which II IL claimed TO be uncon
stitutional. the court are OF the opin
. on that the act is not unconstitution
al Tor any reason assigned