Court Opinion

ID: 9809602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:18:17.323646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:00.934150
License: Public Domain

Douglas, L,
concurring. I concur in the judgment of the Court that the tax is constitutional, because it seems to' me to come within the expressions “trades” and “professions” used in section 3, Art. Y, of the Constitution. I am- not disposed to strictly construe those words as referring only to the “learned professions” which are said to he theology, law and medicine. Such a construction would exclude many occupations that have always been regarded as legitimate subjects of taxation under the form of license. I think the definition most probably contemplated by the Constitution is the following taken- from Webster. °A profession is said to- be “that of Which one professes knowledge, the occupation, if not mechanical, agricultural or the like, to which one devotes one’s self; the business which one professes to- understand, and to follow *690for subsistence.” On the- other baud, it is said that “trade comprehends every species of exchange or dealing, either in the produce of land, in manufactures, in bills or in money; but it is chiefly used to denote the barter or purchase and sale' of goods, wares and merchandise' either by wholesale or retail.” Neither of these words is equivalent to' occupation in its general sense. Therefore, I do’ not think that a farmer or a carpenter could be taxed as such., although one trading or dealing in the products of either might be liable as a trader. In the case at bar, if the defendant had acted only as the agent of one principal, I would doubt his guilt, but as he appeal’s to have engaged hands for more than one, I think it may be said to be his profession. As he must necessarily travel from place to' place to hunt up hands, it seems to me that the tax applies to' the county. I do not see any other construction that would be reasonable, and if the law must be construed so as to impose an unreasonable and prohibitory tax, then I think it would be unconstitutional. It does not seem to' me to be necessary to interfere with Moore’s oase. I freely admit that in the sense used in the Federal decisions, this clearly comes within- the police power of the States; but the Constitution of this State is equally binding upon us as that •of the United States, where there is no conflict, and it is the former which we are now construing.