Court Opinion

ID: 9809603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:18:17.328045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:10.388164
License: Public Domain

Eubches, C. J.,
dissenting.. I do not concur' in the opinion of the Court. If Art. V, sec. 3, of the Constitution, authorizes this tax, I see no restriction upon- the legislative power of taxation, except taxes on properties, moneys and .stocks, which shall be uniform. If it can- tax a man for hiring hands to work on a railroad in another State, why not for hiring them to work on such roads in this State ? And if it can tax a man for hiring hands to work on a railroad in this State, ■why can it- not tax a man for hiring hands to work in a factory or upon his farm ? Indeed, why may it not tax a man who is *691“engaged” in farming or carrying on a farm? That is a business, and to hire bands is to' procure bands. This law provides that “on every emigrant agent or persons engaged in procuring laborers to accept employment in another State,” etc. An emigrant agent may be sucb a calling or business-as might be taxed. But, in my opinion, one may engage in emptying hands without being an agent, and if he does, I do not believe the Constitution will allow him to be punished as a criminal for so doing.
Under this indictment it was not necessary to show that the defendant was the agent of the Norfolk and Western Railroad Company, to make him guilty; but it was sufficient to' show that- he procured, employed hands “to work in another State.” How many did he have to employ, procure, to make him a criminal, two or three ? And he is to be liable for this tax and to indictment for “every separate location where it is carried on.” What is meant by “every separata location ?” Is it every place where he may hire a hand ? If so, with the right of the county to duplicate the State tax, it may become larger than that of the Act of 1891, which was declared to be unconstitutional. ’ State v. Moore, 113 N. C., 697. It is stated in 'the opinion of the Court that it means “each town, city or village” where the business is conducted. By what authority this is said I do not know, as neither “town, city, nor village” is mentioned in the act. If the act had said in each county, I would have known what it meant. But when it says in “each locality,” I do not know what it means. Nor do I believe a revenue act is a police regulation. It is admitted in the opinion of the Court that, in order to sustain this conviction, it is necessary- to overrule State v. Moore, supra. This I am not willing to do.
Cook, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion.