*1 open practice would a field otherwise To hold espe- persons, by unscrupulous of fraud dealers when, apparent in- cially observation as in the is this case, at the of the trial at least two of the stant time disposed plaintiff; and the de- heifers had been thereby opportunity deprived of of hav- fendant was an ing of his defense. them tested for Act, (section force Uniform Sales in this state Code), provides 69 of 83 of the as follows: article ** * goods accepted buyer deemed to have “The him, they he does act when have been delivered to with the owner- which is inconsistent in relation to them seller, when, lapse ship of a reasonable after the intimating goods time, the seller he retains the without Clements, rejected he them.” Loeblein v. has 627, 629, Md. record, is our conclusion that
In such state directed, have been defendant should a verdict unnecessary conclusion, it to review and in view that remaining court, rulings of as raised the trial exceptions. awarding a new
Judgment without reversed appellant. trial, with costs to the et al. v. MARY- RACING COMMISSION MARYLAND LAND CLUB. JOCKEY Term, 1938.] October [No. *2 February 1st, Decided argued
The J., Offutt, Bond, cause before C.
Parke, Sloan, Mitchell, Johnson, JJ.
Hilary Gans, Deputy J. Attorney General, with whom was Herbert O’Conor, Attorney R. General, brief, on the Maryland Racing for the Commission, appellants.
Randolph Barton, Jr., Kelley with whom was P. James brief, on the for the Commissioners of Baltimore County, appellants. Janney Ober, Frank B.
Stuart S. with whom were brief, Ritchie, Janney, Ober & Williams on the for the appellee. J., opinion delivered the of the Court.
Sloan, Maryland Jockey Club, operates which Pimlico City, Track in Baltimore has filed a bill Race to restrain Racing imposition and collection the State Com- daily every day license fee mission racing permitted, to the license fee of in addition day, imposed per one-mile tracks exacted of or on all payable state, now made the additional license fee Racing *3 by Treasurer of Baltimore Commission to the the chapters County, provisions with of the accordance 1918, amended 264 of of and the same as and the Acts 1, 8, 273, of by chapter of the Acts section subdivision 8, 78B, of 1920, article Pub- the latter section Code Laws. lic General County racing Baltimore was horse to 1918
Prior appointed by Governor control of a board the under the County 1912, 77), “Baltimore known as the (Act ch. of Commission,” of within its Racing and one the tracks By plaintiff’s at Pimlico. the jurisdiction was the track portions 1918, 82, of Baltimore and ch. certain Act of City, were annexed to Baltimore Arundel counties Anne territory County Baltimore so annexed of which, located, was from the owner Race Track Pimlico Club, Maryland County Jockey Baltimore had been day collecting every an annual license fee ch, racing track. at that Act 1) provided (section : “That Act of ch. Assembly nothing contained in the Act of the General entitled ‘An Act Extend the Limits Balti- Including City by Therein Parts of Baltimore more County,’ operate County and Anne Arundel shall to affect racing racing jurisdiction any or or race track rights powers of said commission commission Act; by licensees within the limits defined said being the intent Act that race of this such tracks and racing subject thereon shall continue to be to the jurisdiction present Racing Commission of Balti- governed only more by and be the laws in exist- prior day ence January, 1918, including the first Assembly concerning such Acts the General race tracks racing applicable Racing to the Commission of Balti- County, may passed more by present General Assembly; by may such enacted; laws as hereafter be —provided Racing that all by license fees said collected Commission of applied Baltimore shall be purposes same agricultural associations, and two [roads prescribed Act ch. as are now 98] the laws applicable Racing to said Commission of Baltimore County, including any passed amendments thereof at present Assembly.” session of the General Section day made this Act effective one after the Annexation Act should take effect.
By (Code, 78B), Act of ch. 273 article Racing abolished, Commission of Maryland Racing and the created, Commission was with jurisdiction purses over state, all in the provided section it was prescribed that the license fee in section 432 of the Public Local Laws of Baltimore as amended the Act of ch. shall be “* * * paid by Maryland Racing Commission to *4 Treasurer of purposes for the uses and described Section 435 of the Revised Code the Pub- Local County, lic Laws of Baltimore Edition of as by Chapter said Section 435 was amended 89 of the Acts of 1918.” plaintiff year
The every has this license fee since enjoin until when it filed its bill to the members Maryland Racing Commission, (1) demanding from collecting or more than for the of a issuance license $6000 allotted; (2) refusing to for the it dates from a license year unless or until the paid; additional a $3000 (3) commanding upon the Commission to issue the license payment per day days for each of said $6000 racing. original defendants, together
The with allowed to inter- Commissioners defendant, party vene demurred to the bill com- overruled, to plaint. The demurrers were with leave days. The amend in ten declined to answer defendants directing injunc- further, passed when a decree was prayed, from the defendants to issue as which tion appealed. argued chancellor, here,
It before the nor that was discriminatory, or the tax was excess of because fee exacted of the three other mile tracks in license state; any question procedure, is nor there that was injunc- remedy by should be or whether the mandamus Code, question is whether the art. sec. 10. The tion. Legislature require payment of additional can this payable fee, directly indirectly one or whether to state, by person corpora- a or political subdivision operate political sub- a business located another tion regu- contention There is no that the license division. police power of the is not within the lation of State. a imposed a plaintiff contends that it is. tax
The another, locality for the while in one benefit businéss imposed it fee contend that is a license the defendants pay State, State and collected can. any purpose object within the appropriate it conten- The difference in the is not unlawful. state which plaintiff the former and defendants is tions of the tax, fee and as such the additional insists that imposed illegal, is a license fee and of the latter that right precedent State, condition as a territory. racing on mile in the annexed track conduct argument implications plaintiff’s are that there The objection license fee if it to the tax or could no valid authority to and retained the State. all went strongly upon plaintiff relies most in this state which Queen opinion in Talbot Commrs. is from the *5 Commrs., is said: County where it Anne’s Md. county public of the territorial divisions “A one of the is organized State, political public purposes created and the connected with administration the State Govern- ment, especially charged superintendence and with the community; and administration of the local affairs being object organiza- municipal and nature and tion, Legislature may, by restrained Con- unless stitution or some one or more those fundamental right justice respect maxims and all with to which governments society supposed organized, and to be agencies, require exercise county control over the public performed such by duties functions to them general scope objects as fall within the mu- nicipal organization. Legis- true, power It is municipal organizations lature over these without limit, State, under the especially Constitution of this regard objects dependent there a upon limit power exercise of the of taxation. This im- limitation is plied very objects from organiza- nature and applied tion. State, As to these subdivisions of the Legislature power no require has more to be a tax county raised in pay purely one object for a local county, and for require another than has to expenses purely public improvement of a should given one or a number of individuals.” Brooks v. 265; Baltimore, City Allegany County 48 Md. Baltimore Commrs., 1, 7, 632; Appeal Md. 57 A. Tax Court Patterson, 50 Md. & Rail- Eastern Shore Spring, 208; Cooley road Co. v. 80 Md. (4th Ed.), appli-
Taxation case arose from The an Queen County cation Commissioners of Anne’s compel County for a writ mandamus to pro- comply Commissioners of Talbot with the con- visions of the Act of maintenance and draw-bridge Nar- struction of over channel of Kent Queen rows, wholly County, one- located within Anne’s county, borne each half of the cost erection to be to be under the control of the thereafter Queen County. Commissioners Anne’s Act upheld Tal- because of the which would accrue to benefit *6 County quotation from Talbot County. While the
bot Queen Commrs., supra, aptly County Anne’s Commrs. contention, implies plaintiff’s decision expresses county paying exception where may be an that there object of taxation. the benefit also receives the tax rely direct on the distinction between a The defendants City paid to to be property in Baltimore on tax levied agree would be County, sides unlaw- which both Baltimore engage business, in privilege to in a ful, or and a horse-rasing, regulation and the business this case power police licensing State. which is within argument that this in the defendants’ no virtue There Gray, 80 Rohr v. It is a tax. not a tax. license and is a 632; Mobile, LeLoup 127 U.S. v. Port 274, A. Md. (Rawle’s 311; 2 Bouvier Third 1380, L.Ed. 8 S.Ct. Rev.), page 1976. property which on all owners falls a tax is not
It
apply
business,
to all
which would
alike,
on a
but a tax
County
territory
Baltimore
in the
owners
race track'
City by
ch.
the Act
Baltimore
annexed
Johnson,
251;
State,
Havre de Grace
57 Md.
Corson v
Air,
Bel
Jewel Tea Co. v.
143 Md.
just happens
Pimlico
that
money, no unlawful use is made as as charge uses to which the there no made here that the is may money applied said is to be are unlawful. It that because of difference in this statement is obiter enough this, points facts of that case and but there similarity apply here, will hereafter rule so it judicial have the force of decision. It was cited 335, 347, quoted Stanley, in Foote & 117 Md. Co. Supreme
A. 380. That case was reversed Court 494, 495, United in 232 States U.S. S.Ct. ground oyster inspection L.Ed. on the Act public imposed ch. such fees in excess of the commerce, impose need as to a burden on interstate but otherwise decision stands. imposed nothing away
The license tax here from takes City, for, part payable if Baltimore to Baltimore not, away, legislative were taken would it without go authority, City. Racing sport li- is a (supra), go censed the State the fees for which State, practically licenses, except as do all from revenues by municipalities, those collected and are disbursed as goes Assembly. directed the General into Some general funds, others, while such as the automobile registration, case,
licenses and are ear-marked. In this ($3000) daily fee one-third or tax collected appropriated by plaintiff from the the General Assem- bly County (Acts 89, 264; to Baltimore Acts chs. ch.273, 8), sec. which we subd. find to be legislative power. valid exercise of reversed, dissolved, injunction The decree will be . complaint and bill of dismissed. injunction costs,
Decree reversed with dis- solved, complaint bill dismissed. Parke, J., dissenting opinion follows, filed a in which J., Johnson, concurred. question appeal
The sole in the instant constitu- tionality particular provision statutory of a law imposing occupation upon an additional license or tax one *8 racing operators of of of of the same class tracks for the Maryland. question within the of horses State While the single, may the correct answer be found on differ- two grounds. every ent The court must declare the law' case, para- enforce the as the and so must Constitution legislative whenever found mount law act is to be therefore, may parties, conflict. The their election question confine of the of the court its consideration constitutionality validity of the of to the determination objection ground Balti- of where several exist. but one O’Conor, 639, 654, 40 A.L.R. more v Md. Madison, Marbury L.Ed. 60. Cranch additional dissents in the conviction that the The writer for the reasons that it is tax is unconstitutional discriminatory of the interdiction and unlawful because organic provisions Fourteenth law and the of the of States, United of Amendment the Constitution Rights twenty-third of Declaration of article of the Maryland. that the of It is submitted of the Constitution against unreasonably one member discriminates statute an by arbitrarily imposing upon member of a class imposed occupation which is not license or tax additional class; and, local any for the upon other member of the political di- and distinct of another benefit and exclusive upon member illegally lays tax vision, this additional racing member’s track location because State. political part one division within a 29th, 1918, chapter 82 the Acts March On enactment, known as which is By approved. this was 1918,” Baltimore parts of certain Act of “Annexation City. In the incorporated Baltimore County with were Pimlico, at acquired race track is located the area thus corporation. private operated by a which is owned continued, long and at racing Pimlico had at Horse provisions of subject to the was of the annexation time County. By the ex- in Baltimore in force the local laws Act, provisions press of the Annexation terms City, Maryland, of Baltimore the Charter Constitution City, applicable and all to Baltimore all local laws municipality, were extended of that the ordinances portions of Baltimore applicable those made annexed, local laws and the which were provided, were except the statute otherwise territory concerned. repealed far as the annexed so Among 2. effects this ch. sec. Acts inoperative local laws to render statute was that racing respect Pimlico and at Baltimore with place the area annexed to other within at operative City. provisions of the statute became 1st, June Assembly, local same session of the General
At the were amended relative laws of Baltimore *9 3rd, April by chapter 89, approved on which was chapter days approval of but few than the a later day. The statute effect on the same which went into of Revised Code 432 and 435 amended sections County, of Edition Local Laws of Baltimore of Public legalized by chapter of title 16 of the Acts as imposed brief, “Racing a In statute Commission.” days, every day up five of to of for fee $75 day, races day every unless the additional a S3000 mile, a half of over were run on a mile track or a track every day of when license fee was the rac- $3000 Racing ing period. County The Baltimore Commission required pay expenses of li- was to limited out these surplus cense fees and to disburse the in this manner: surplus were Two-thirds to be the Commis- County sion to to Treasurer of Baltimore be used and expended pub- in the construction maintenance bridges County, lic roads and located in Baltimore as the County County may deter- Commissioners mine, but, first, “to reconstruction of Hanover turn- pike road between Reisterstown and the Carroll line; and, second, improvement to construction and Dulaney’s Valley turnpike from road northwest remaining Towson.” The one-third the Commission was required equally pay to divide and to thereof one-half Maryland Agricultural Society State Fair and of Bal- County, timore and the other one-half White Hall Improvement Associations, Farmers Club and “for the encouraging improved an increased exhi- products agricultural bition farm at the held an- fairs nually Hall,” at Timonium and which White are both present County. within the limits of Baltimore The stat- law, public ute was local and was effective within the limits Baltimore as reduced the Annexa- statute, therefore, tion Act of 1918. The had no extra- effect, apply territorial and did not annexed terri- tory, within which was the Pimlico race track. legislative
Under these the same Gen- circumstances Assembly passed statute, approved eral later which 24th, April day became effective on the after but (Acts 82) 19Í8 be- the Annexation ch. Act chapter 264 of came effective. This last the three is purports supplemental be a Acts Act, purpose was to to the Annexation and its statute local, incorporate Act statutes Annexation racing, so make reference to Baltimore with portion applicable operative within that Bal- them incorporated been timore which had City by The General Assem- the Annexation Act of 1918. *10 bly provision no Act declared that the Annexation racing jurisdiction should affect race track or rights powers any racing commission or the and limits defined said commission or its licenses within the by Act, such race tracks and the the Annexation but that racing jurisdiction subject shall continue to the therein Racing County, present and of Baltimore Commission governed only by prior the laws in existence day January, 1918, including such of the first Acts concerning racing ap- Assembly, race and General tracks Racing County, plicable of Baltimore to the Commission may Assembly, passed by present and General enacted, may and all such laws as be hereafter Racing of Balti- fees collected Commission County applied purposes more same as are shall be Racing prescribed by applicable now to said the laws including County, any amend- Commission of Baltimore passed present thereof session of the Gen- ments at Assembly. eral designed of Bal- was to have the local laws effect County respect operative with race with- tracks
timore acquired area of Baltimore which had been only of Baltimore and commit administra- City tion of those local laws within the to the Baltimore Racing Commission, to assure to Baltimore but local the full benefit of the license fees for the purposes County. The anomalous situation acting having control, county a board of officials capacity, respect an horse rac- administrative with ing wholly territory portion on tracks within a political unit, performing its in- distinct duties dependently jurisdiction municipal offi- latter’s cers, change succeeding continued until the made Assembly. session of the General
By Assembly Acts of ch. General un- regulate, control, dertook to and license horse Maryland, within the State of for this Maryland Racing Commission, created provided powers 31st, approved and duties. It was on March
94 year. Code, and became effective on June 1st of that art. Commission,” “Racing 78B, 1-17. title secs. The statute racing prohibited any all horse meet- within the state at ing any stake, purse, reward, except for or it be licensed 6. further the Commission. Section It forbade permits meetings unless, of and licenses issuance for such places holding races, on the or for there had been tracks meetings racing every held at least once run year period years for a of three consecutive before provision confine enactment. The of this towas 1937, racing existing (Acts Section 7 of ch. courses. 408). every day given was fee license repealed
$6000, declared it in nowise but the statute except chapter provisions of of the Acts Maryland Racing Commission should be substi- that the Racing tuted for the Commission of chapter 264, paid entitled and should be mentioned in by chapter prescribed to receive the license fee pay such license fee and should Acts purposes as for the set Treasurer Local 435 of of Public forth in section the Revised Code said sec- Edition of Laws Baltimdre by chapter 1918. Sec- 89 of Acts of tion was amended (Acts Compare Acts ch. ch. 408. tion “li- fees, license an additional 481). In addition these per of the net revenue cense fee or of fifteen centum tax” imposed by licensee section 12. of a questions provisions present These sufficient to except record, no need stated on this more be provision a that the unconstitution- the statute contains part paragraphs ality nullity in whole or remaining paragraphs validity of the shall not affect the force paragraphs, in full parts of which are to remain 3) (section re- Act and effect. The final section peals all laws. inconsistent Racing chapter separate a Under section county fairs or Commission to license was authorized year. agricultural exhibits, every A days in few for a received is day and the fee is exacted fee of §50 county in which the treasurer directed to (Acts may held. Section exhibit fair or Session, chs. 255; 1936, Special ch. 1st ch.
64, 408). through chapter 324 of obtained
Additional revenue is 79B, 12A of article 1933, known as section the acts of legislation By tax is laid at the Supp. this Code money per on the total amount of one centum rate *12 meeting, except wagered during every that on all races Racing agricultural The Com- county exhibit. of a fair tax, separate which is transmitted to paid this mission is 78B, 1935), Maryland. (Supp. art. the Treasurer of Code 408). (see 1937, 64, sec. 12A Acts of chs. chapter Acts of 273 the
Several of the sections amended, parenthetical references 1920 have been as the indicate, modifica- heretofore noted but the to statutes statement, particular require made do a tions thus not change presented by they problem the do not the because original petition. legal rights person controversy
The involves the a property, private corporations are in relation its since “persons” meaning of Fourteenth Amend- within the the concerned, ment, rights property so far as their (Gros- equal protection and are entitled to of the law jean Co., 233, 244, v. American 297 U.S. 56 S.Ct. Press 105, Baldridge, 444, 660; 80 278 Liggett L.Ed. Co. U.S. 466, Ames, 57, 204; Smyth 169
49 73 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. Turnpike 418, 819; Covington 42 & L. 18 L. Ed. S.Ct. 198, 41 Sandford, Road 164 17 S.Ct. Co. v. U.S. ; right 560) and lawful busi-
L.Ed. to conduct their property equally ness with others of the same class right. 327, 42 Corrigan, Truax v. 257 U.S. S.Ct. 375; Duplex Printing
66 27 Press Co. v. L.Ed. A.L.R. Deering, 443, 465, 65 L.Ed. U.S. S.Ct. 105, 111,
Liggett Baldridge, Co. v. S.Ct. U.S.
It is admitted reason license was plaintiff pay the issued to the had declined to was that it $3000; additional tax of if and when granted. the license would forthwith be If im- position of the additional tax is invalid on constitutional grounds, the refusal of the Commission li- to issue the unwarranted, right cense plaintiff and denied the business, and, so, right property conduct is here involved. history provisions
With the statutory law kept mind, now in force incidence of those provisions right upon plaintiff carry on its known, lawful inquiry business the next relates nature of the license tax or fee. only
The
of the statute at bar is not
to secure
licenses,
revenue but also to limit the number of
and to
regulate
privilege
granted.
the exercise of the
when
objects
requirement
last two
are attained
that-cer-
preliminary
tain
conditions to
issue of
the license are
subsequent regulation
fulfilled and
of the enter-
prise through
instrumentality
of an official commis-
sion. Thus the license fee or tax created is both an occu-
pation
privilege
tax and a revenue measure. Whether
*13
every day
the fee of
exacted for
of the races dur-
$6000
ing
meetings
primarily
purposes,
the
is
for revenue
since
obviously
necessary
it is
much in
so
excess of the amount
expenses
issuing
cover the actual
to
the license and of
regulating
controlling
racing,
necessary
to
the
is not
It, however,
indisputable
decide.
would be
that the reve-
legal
nue obtained from the
none
fee “is
the less
$6000
ordinance,
because the
which authorized it fulfills the two
regulating
functions, one a
other
revenue func-
and the
a
Royall Virginia,
572„ 579,
116
6
tion.”
U.S.
S.Ct.
737;
Christensen,
Crowley
29 L.Ed.
137 U.S.
However,
charge
daily
(4th pp. p. Vansant sec. sec. 102. See Stage 336; Company, 330, 335, v. Harlem Md. State v.
Rowe, Applegarth, 72 Md. State v. 293, 300, Md. A. discretion, Legislature generally Within its has power impose upon fixed license or fee all who tax engaged occupation in a certain or business. according may of the license amount determined capital employed; receipts value stock or or income; population political or to where unit conducted; or, corporation, capi- the business is if a to its or assets. The fee or tal stock amount this license tax legislative may usually be increased decreased may will. It is further true the increase be made particular engaged with reference to a class of those occupation Again, an or business. or rate of the amount may graduated political the tax within a with unit sub-divisions; reference fee or tax the license may, Legislature, inoper- at the discretion of the be made designated general political within ative units. All these necessarily subject qualification observations are provisions tax must violate the federal the. or a state constitution. *14 further true
It is constitutional mandate that equal primarily taxation shall be uniform refers property, in apply and does its full taxation laying force to the or voca- a license tax on a business 961; Applegarth, State 12 Am. tion. 81 Md. However,
Juris., 485-494, 505, pp. 163-176; secs. 187.
98 Amendment of Federal Consti- under the Fourteenth tution, equal protection prohibits the denial of which twenty- provision laws, similar and the article Mary- Rights three Declaration of of the State land, equally uni- laid bear license taxes must formly persons subjects embraced in the same on all class, conditions and circumstances. and under similar Company Lord, 172, 43 Mining 262 U.S. Iron Oliver 53, p. 201; Whaley 929; C.J., 67 L.Ed. sec. S.Ct. 1; Impr. Dist., 152 Ark. S.W. v. Northern Road Shaughnessy, P. Am. 47 Nev. State v. 478, 480, pp. 142-151, pp. 207- Juris., sec. secs. legislation imposed by which is made The license tax any one operation not confined to in and is state-wide its political of the state. or more of the divisions subordinate persons identify The terms which and define the class uniform, subjects purview of the law are within the No application. in their mem- and reasonable universal geography. political in terms of ber of defined the class is there The made the demurrer is that admission the entire Their in state. but four members class George’s racing meetings, several are at Bowie Prince County; County; de Harford at Laurel at Havre Grace County; Pimlico, is now in Anne Arundel and at which City, before the Annexation Act but County. Every one re- in Baltimore of these is pay quired identical license fee of $6000 the law day racing. Every every members for one'of these class, requisites statutory possesses common requisites territorial relation and none these has racing member within the other than that conduct equal incidence of license tax state. The and uniform is, destroyed however, with reference to the owner of Pimlico, imposed upon track at which has day during meet- an additional tax of $3000 ings racing, Racing col- which Commission the State diminution, pays, lects but without to Baltimore purposes. reason for which uses the fund for local *15 apparently this additional burden is the race track Pimlico at was within the limits of Baltimore be- incorporated City by fore became in Baltimore An- provi- particular nexation 1918. The Act of effect of this occupation sion is to the license or tax make $9000 length day racing upon specified every of of a race track a portion present and user within of the of Bal- area City part territory timore which was a of of Balti- more at the time of the Annexation ofAct day, (a) any a if race be such a track within S6000 part existing territory City of other (b) any place Maryland. other within the of As State racing spring fall, there is Pimlico in the dis- at large money every year. a of crimination mounts to sum legisla- nothing history form There is in the of the of tion which relieves this license tax its unreasonable If, argued, arbitrary discrimination. as the addi- racing imposition every day one of tional of $3000 advantage superior is attributable to the location Pimlico, density popula- so far ease of access and patrons are con- tion and the financial resources of its cerned, legislation supply does not a basis for such a object super-license rationalization. The tax was designed clearly County. for the local benefit Baltimore political The intention was to secure to that sub-division which the continuation the license tax county previously had received from tracks within county portion been annexed Balti- which had City by purpose of more of 1918. The declared the Acts Assembly within the the General was that the race tracks annexed, racing thereon, “shall area and the continue jurisdiction Racing subject present to the Com- County” tax of mission of Baltimore and that County. 1918. The license- Acts of $3000 throughout applied tax under entire the Acts state without reference to the location the race tracks respect any political affected in Advan- süb-division.
tage large location, proximity centers of because population, superior quality patronage of a primary
race-goers, evidently considered. The were *16 same, Bowie or Havre is the whether at fee or tax patently advantageously Grace, less lo- de which are the Laurel, tracks, which are the more cated Pimlico or at favorably tracks, now in Balti- the first is situated since City the lies between cities Bal- more and second Washington readily timore both are accessible and patrons metropolis. further be of either It should negatives legislation by implication the observed that the any supe- imposed because inference that the surtax is City, riority in Baltimore the location of the tracks advantage pre- no where the since would exist matter this racing were conducted within kind of tracks for scribed nevertheless, City, law, Baltimore but the the limits of meetings only portion lays on race the surtax City annexa- which taken area preferential tion from Baltimore Such question beyond inequality dis- demonstrates to advan- made has no reasonable relation crimination tages population. or of of location
The intention of the lawmakers ascertained statute, meaning language used in the and not legislators may meant to ex what court conceive the give press. of construction to It is not function sig act, but to and declare the sensible better ascertain used, applied when facts nification of words they passage of the statute. existed at time by fifty per the license increase centum of tax Since the prescribed operation of a track for to be designated part of the territorial area of within a City purposes, revenue and does not uniformly equally upon persons all in the bear same enterprise, inequality kind of business this basis, clearly without a discrimination reasonable arbitrary occupation license or tax additional is an distinction, and, therefore, unwarranted unconstitutional 703; 171, Shapiro, 168, 101 and void. v. 131 Md. A. State Osborne, Cal.App. 58, 854; Riley, In re 39 177 P. State v. 66, 678, 164 294; Mitchell, 171 v. 97 Iowa N.W. State Me. 101 Heights Hunt, 35, 887; 53 A. Haddon 90 101 N.J.L. A. 1052; 696, People
427, 91 affirmed N.J.L. v. Jen kins, 1065; People 53, Wilber, 202 N.Y. 94 N.E. 198 Inspection 1140; N.Y. 90 N.E. Steam Boiler Hartford Harrison, & Insurance Co. v. 301 U.S. may
S.Ct. L.Ed. 1223-1226. class com posed long persons, of one or who more so as all are or may who come into situation or the like circumstances Holman, Mo.App. 70, are of the class. In re S.W. affirmed 270 Mo. S.W. Durach’s Appeal, 491; Norfolk, Norfolk, 62 Pa. P. & N. News v.Co.
105 Va.
Cooley Taxation, on secs. requirement equality of constitutional and uni- formity may by inequality, be as in violated territorial taxing imposition the case of the of in one a tax district for the exclusive benefit of In another. addition to the question equal protection laws, equal- of ity uniformity taxation, here in- there are also questions concept volved concern which the fundamental equality practical application par- of taxation in to a questions apportionment ticular territorial of taxes. The they may are so related that be in connection considered Cooley (4th Ed.), with one another. Taxation sec.
p. 645. chapter “Equality
In the
and Uni-
devoted to the title
give
formity
Cooley
“In
of Taxation”
order to
states:
upon
people
any
state
validity
demand made
its
to
only
tax, it is
not
name of a
essential
that
under the
accomplished thereby
public
shall
purpose
be
be
to
equally
purpose shall
nature,
essential
that
but it is
especial
pertains
peculiar
manner
which in an
be one
con-
proposed
it
that the
within which
to the district
collected,
which con-
for shall be
called
tribution
particularly
people
district more
than
cerns the
* * *
proportionate
are collected
does others.
Taxes
as
public purposes.
to make them such
But
contributions to
they
only
sense,
as between
any
must not
such
true
them,
persons
pay
but
between
called on
also as
to
* *
*
‘ought’
pay
it is more
who
them.
And
no
those
incompetent
persons
exceptional
select
classes
of the state
burdens than it is
select districts
* * *
purpose.
be accom-
A state
must
by county
taxation,
county purpose
plished by
state
any
public purpose for
inferior district
taxation and a
only just
but it
district. This is
taxation
such
compelled
To
extent that one man is
is essential.
properly
pay
public
in order to relieve others
burden
resting
them,
upon
property
private pur-
his
is taken for
poses,
plainly
appro-
palpably
would
if
and as
as it
priated
payment
discharge
debts
obligations
person
pay-
which the
thus relieved
his
*18
might
private parties.” Cooley
ments
owe
on Taxation
to
(4th Ed.),
314, pp. 650-653,
sec.
sec.
sec.
Union
Refrigerator
Kentucky,
Transit Co. v.
199 U.S.
50 L.Ed.
S.Ct.
recognized
principle
in
This
was
enforced Miller
and
Commrs.,
County
Wicomico
Md.
In the last cited case thus stated did not application levy county have because the of a one tax way of contribution to maintenance and construc- draw-bridge adjoining of county sup- tion in an ported solely object for the reason that the to be accom- plished by the construction and maintenance the draw- bridge character, special pecu- was local and of sought people liar interest to be taxed. The facts took principle which the case cited out of the stated are not found on the record at bar.
If incorporated the area of Baltimore now with City accepted having Baltimore be as into been erected separate imposing district the addi- $3000 upon any tional tax of race track located within district, taxing appear it does not so district arbitrarily any special peculiar erected ad- derives vantage in the use the tax prescribed. in the manner No direct this $3000 benefit to taxing City assumed district within Baltimore is to appropriation found in the the tax two-thirds expended used and in the construction or maintenance public according roads located in Baltimore Commissioners, to the discretion of its agricultural equally one-third two to be divided between County. purely associations of Baltimore local na- provision ture uses is accentuated these used, bridges funds available roads shall be first, turnpike be- the reconstruction of Hanover County line, and, tween Carroll Reisterstown and the sec- ond, improvement to the construction and Du- laney’s Valley turnpike Towson, road northward from north, both Reisterstown and Towson and some boundary miles distant from the nearest *19 City. declares, apparently, majority view
The that the tax imposed would be invalid if the statute had the tax provided paid directly that should the be to Balti- $3000 more that valid because the but it becomes stat- ute, tax, imposing appropriates after to be-used $3000 county roads, bridges public for the benefit of and local private corporate agricultural per- societies. It not appropriation ceived how of the of the tax to public purposes local would be un- constitutional, appropriation tax but that the of the same public purpose county some local endows- that imposed constitutionality. In case the tax act with either taxing public for local in district would used one purposes taxing county. of another district Applegarth, 293, 31 A. in 81 Md. decision State v. in point. was there held if the license It that valid, pro- imposed immaterial whether the tax it was placed mediately imme- were ceeds of the tax “Oyster Fund,” diately was to the credit of the which maintaining dedicated the statute to. regulations protection proper police for the sufficient and Maryland .oysters that in waters. In case fish and packing for the license fee exacted State was and, received, oysters applied by for the State when performance in use the State the benefit and peculiarly province within the of the State function oysters public protection in the relation to the problem the State. It is submitted that waters power impose primary the license here is the one supra, taxj Applegarth, decision State adopted precedent authority the rule nor is not which, case, present decision in the enforced Queen over-ruling Anne’s Talbot Commrs. Commrs., viola- supra, holds it is neither a equality un- principle which tion of the fundamental relating taxation, con- derlies all the rules nor taxes occupation and license stitutional mandate that class, equal persons uniform on of the sanie must be taxing bene- sole for the State tax one district
105 taxing district, taxing fit of another when the burdened special unit derives no direct or benefit therefrom. The adopted novel, unfair, doctrine Its evil onerous. taxpayer imposing upon effect concerns the him the necessity contributing which, toward a al though public, is one in which has he no interest. It compel him, class, peri would of his to make others payments odical of certain sums the exclusive bene taxpayers municipality part fit of the of another Cooley (4th Ed.), 95, pp. state. on Taxation sec. 223- 225, 3390, 3571; 1683, p. 1817, p. Cooley’s sec. sec. Consti 1039; (8th Ed.), p. Willoughby tutional Limitations Constitution, 3, vol. sec. 1280. See Alabama Power City Hill, 489, 289, 291; Co. v. Corbin 234 Ala. 175 So. People Townsend, 633, 637; Decatur, v. 56 Cal. White v. 646, 873; Vannier, 186,
225 144 Ala. So. Farris v. 6 Dak. 31;
42 Mathews, 301, N.W. Carlton v. 103 Fla. 137 So. 815; Mathews, 1, 115, 308; 65, Amos v. 99 Fla. 126 So. McAllister, (Ky.) 312; Fence v.Co. 12 Bush. Scuffletown Lafayette Co., 78, 82, 630; Dorgan v. State 134 La. 63 So. Boston, (Mass.) 223, 12 237; Opinion
v. Allen In re Justices, Taxation, 595, 827; In re State 97 Me. A. 55 Springfield Township, Manistee Lumber Co. v. 92 Mich.
277, 468; County, 52 273; 9 N.W. Sanborn v. Rice Minn. Weston, 384; City Nolle, 22
Wells v. Mo. St. Charles v. 122, 124; City George, Mo.App. 51 Mo. St. v. 225 Clair 30, 1019, 1021; Lacy, 33 Johnston v. S.W.2nd 141, 482; 174 93 Reeves N.C. S.E. v. Bumcombe 45, 452; 204 N. C. 167 Berlin Mills Co. Went S.E. v. 156; Roxbury, Location, v.
worth’s 60 N.H. Keene 81 7; Wade, 332, 126 N.H. A. Elizabethtown Co. v. Water 78, 4; 59 N.J.Law In re Assessment Lands in 398, 406; Fitzsimmons, Flatbush, 60 N.Y. Hubbard 57 v. 487, 436, 477; Northup, 49 27 Or. St. N.E. Simon v.
Ohio 560; 146, 150; Philadelphia, 40 65 P. Hammett v. Pa. 168;
Sharpless Refining Philadelphia, v. 21 Pa. Gulf 798; Knoxville, 256, 188 Taylor v.Co. 136 Tenn. S.W. Chandler, City (Tenn.) 349; v. 9 Heisk. Robinson v.
Norfolk, 762; Fox, Berry 60 v. 114 Va. S.E. W.Va. 896; Schlarb, Newman Wash. 172 S.E. Wisconsin, 36; Chicago N. R. P.2nd & W. R. Co. Providence, 108 N.W. Joslin v. Wis. 668, 673, 43 67 L.
262 U.S. S.Ct. Ed. *21 the court makes it lawful The rule established Assembly the license fee within to increase General City, require section of Baltimore and to the same plaintiff pay fee to the Com- the new license Garrett, Wicomico, Mary’s any other missioners St. sug- specific county purposes. county local As opinion gested of the chancel- in the able and exhaustive doing lor, business and theatres traders might required pay City license fees additional jail. field of taxa- rebuild its aid of Carroll in the newly find its tion created would sole limit thus Assembly. will of General GORDY, JR., Comptroller, v. SAMUEL S. WILLIAM
K. DENNIS. Term, October [No. 1938.]