аfter stating the facts. Well prepared and well considered briefs were filed in this case by counsel on each side. They have aided us in considering, and deciding the interesting question presented for the first time for decision. The рlaintiff’s counsel say, “The decision of the case turns upon the question whether a capitation tax levied by the commissioners in pursuance of a special act of the Legislature for a special purpоse, as contemplated by Article V, section 6, of the Constitution, must be appropriated in the manner prescribed in section 2 of the same article.” The defendant resists the construction contended for by pointing us to sеction 1 of the same article.
Section 2, Article V, provides that “the proceeds of the State and county capitation tax shall be applied to the purposes of education and the support of the poor,” etc.
Seсtion 6 provides that “The taxes levied by the commissioners of the several counties for county purposes shall be levied in like manner with the State taxes and shall never exceed the double of the State tax, except for a special purpose, and with the approval of the General Assembly.”
Section 7. “Every act of the General Assembly levying a tax shall state the object to which it is to be applied, and it shall be appliеd to no other purpose.”
The plaintiff contends that by section 2 the proceeds of all capitation tax, whether derived from the general revenue act made to meet the ordinary and necessary expenses of the *312 State and county government, or from special acts authorizing the levy of a tax for a special purpose exceeding the constitutional limit, must be applied to the support of the public sсhools and the poor. That section 2 controls the application of all capitation tax, thus confining the language of section 7 to property tax. The defendant contends that section 2 should be confinеd in its application to capitation tax 'levied pursuant to the requirement of section 1, Article V, to meet the equation prescribed for ordinary expenses of the State and county government. That section 7 сontrols the application of not only all property tax, hut all capitation tax levied pursuant to special laws for a special purpose. The defendant suggests that whether this is correct as to all capitation tax, it is certainly so as to all such tax in excess of two dollars. It must be conceded that there is an apparent conflict between the two sections. It is our duty to reconcile them, so that, if possible, both be given force and effect. It is said by Judge Cooley: “If different portions seem to conflict the courts must harmonize them, if practicable, and must lean in favor of a construction which will render every word operative rather than one which may make some words idle and nugatory.” Const. Lim., 92.
Article V of the Constitution has been the subject of much controversy; the construction and reconciliation of the different sections have given the Court much difficulty. There can he no doubt that the restrictions and limitations therein have seriously embarrassed the Legislature in providing-necessary revenue to meet the demands of a growing, progressive community. It is impossible to read the many opinions of the Justices of this Court without being impressed with this fact. It would seem that to arrive at satisfactory, or at least workable, results, the Court has run very close to the line which separates construction from making the law. We may, however, in the light of the decisions treat some ques
*313
tions as settled. By tbe express language of Article I, section 5, it is made tbe duty of tbe General Assembly to levy a capitation tax on every male inhabitant between tbe ages of twenty-оne and fifty, wbicb shall be equal to the tax on property valued at $300 in cash. That such State and county tax combined shall never exceed two dollars on tbe poll.
Mr. Justice
Rodman, who was a member of the Constitutional Convention of 1868, at the June Term, 1869, of this Court in
Railroad v. Holden,
To weaken the very essential safeguard against the abuse of the taxing power found in section 7, Article V, would expose the property of the citizen to dangers, which experience has shown to lurk in every form of government, because of the fact that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.” We should be slow to adopt a construction which would carry the capitatiоn tax which must accompany every special tax for necessary purposes into a channel different from that “stated,” setting at naught the peremptory command “it shall not be applied to any other purpоse.” To do so would seriously embarrass the counties in meeting the ever-increasing demands of a progressive people for better roads, bridges and public buildings. It is suggested that until the limit of two dollars is reached the provision of section 2 controls and carries the capitation tax into the school and poor fund. We think it best to decide only the question before us. It is conceded that the limit had been reached in Macon County for general purposes and that the levy authorized by the special act is in excess of the limit. The judgment of his Honor sustaining the demurrer must be
Affirmed.