Court Opinion

ID: 9811681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:27:16.260858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:06.618280
License: Public Domain

CoNNOR, J.j
concurring: Appreciating'the reasons upon which the well-considered opinion of "Mr. Justice Holce is based, I am constrained to concur in the conclusion reached. My investigation, however, in Railroad v. Commissioners, ante, 220, impressed upon my mind the conviction that the framers of the Constitution of 1868 did not anticipate that any poll tax should be levied for other than “State and county purposes,” and for those it should not exceed $2, and should be applied only to the purpose of education and the support of the poor. I was strengthened in that opinion by the fact that an examination of the Constitution of every other State in the Union showed that no poll tax is levied except for those purposes. In a large majority of States the poll tax is limited to a certain sum, and in none can the.limit fixed be exceeded. Unfortunately, the Convention of 1S68 dealt with the subject of taxation in two separate and distinct articles of the Constitution, thus giving foundation for the construction now adopted, that the equation and limitation do not apply to municipal or quasi municipal corporations— *529that they are subject to such poll taxation as the Legislature may see fit to impose. I do not think that the subject of poll tax for other than general taxation “for State and county purposes” was considered by the members of the Convention. No such tax has ever been levied other than by the State, and this was required “to be uniform throughout the State.” Amendment 1835. The history of the struggle in this country between those who, with Judge Cooley, regard all poll taxation, except in a few cases, as both unjust and impolitic, and therefore not “of common resort in modern times,” and those who have sought to impose upon the privilege of citizenship a tax, justifies the conclusion that, as in other States the poll tax was to be expressly limited both in respect to its amount and the purpose to which it should be applied. I cannot but think that the failure to do so is unfortunate. • While I sympathize with the tendency in this State to encourage the spirit of local self-government by the establishment by legislation of special districts for the purpose of providing for and stimulating public schools, good roads and other matters of local interest, I regret to be compelled to leave the question of the amount of poll tax which may be levied open to the changes and chances of legislation and local elections. I fear that confusion and uncertainty will follow. If, by establishing these local divisions of our counties and townships, called, for want of a better term, quasi municipal corporations, the poll tax may be enlarged to any amount, is conceded, the constitutional restriction made for the protection of the wage earners may be largely legislated away. Professor Holland, in his work, “Studies of State Taxation,” gives some valuable information and reflections on the subject of capitation taxation. He refers to the North Carolina system as “a dead weight which hangs so heavily over the small property owner.” Of course, we have no other duty or power than to declare the law as the people in the exercise of their sovereignty have made it. Speaking, however, for myself alone, I cannot hut regard the *530conclusion to wbicb we are brought as unfortunate. The amount of the tax upon the man, the citizen, should be fixed by the Constitution, and not left open to legislative action or local elections. The extent to which the poll tax may be increased through the medium of quasi municipal corporations will be difficult to fix upon a substantial and satisfactory basis. Fortunately, in this case the tax goes to the support of the public school, but there is nothing in the Constitution, as we interpret it, by which such taxation may be confined to this purpose. I fear that a way has been opened by which the question which should be removed from the domain of discussion and uncertainty will become a vexatious and disturbing element of discord. Like the right of suffrage, the capitation tax should be disturbed only by the people, in the exercise of their sovereign power, by amending their Constitution.