Court Opinion

ID: 9811842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:30:39.479318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:54.705349
License: Public Domain

Douglas, J.,
dissenting. The opinion of the Court rightly says: “If (the tax were) levied upon shell-fish in that county for the purpose of raising revenue for the State treasury, it would be forbidden by the Constitution because not laid by uniform rule.” The opinion further says, and I think correctly so, that “from the title and general purport of the *163act, and especially of tbe provisión for the appointment of an unlimited number of deputies, it is clear that there was no expectation or intention to raise any money for the State treasury (and none has been paid into the State treasury from this source), but that the object was solely to provide salaries for those engaged in enforcing the regulations for the protection of shell-fish in Brunswick County.” The act provides that “the tax so collected is to be paid to the County Treasurer of Brunswick County and by him paid to the State Treasurer, after first paying the shell-fish commissioner a salary of $400 per annum, and sub shell-fish commissioners, etc.” The act further provides that “The shell-fish commissioner shall be one of the qualified voters of Brunswick County,” and that he in turn “shall have the‘power to appoint two or more sub shell-fish commissioners out of the qualified voters of Brunswick County.” No other qualifications appear to be required, and while their general duties “shall be to protect and promote the shell-fish interests of Brunswick County,” their special duties seem to be to collect sufficient tax to pay their salaries. It seems to be conceded that if the tax were a source of revenue to the State the act would be unconstitutional. I gravely doubt whether the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature should ever be made to depend upon the absorptive powers of any set of officers. However, it is due to them to say that so far they seem to have effectually maintained its constitutionality under the test indicated in the opinion of the Court. I cannot bring my mind to assent to the validity of such legislation, which, in my opinion, substitutes the will of the draughtsman for that of the General Assembly. It is due to the Legislature to say that the act was passed in the closing days of its session.