59 Ga. 535 | Ga. | 1877
The act of February 16, 1876, (Pamph. 17,) defines an emigrant agent to be any person engaged in hiring laborers in this state, to be employed beyond the limits of the same. It provides for a license, on payment of $100.00 into the county treasury, and makes it penal for any person to carry
The plaintiffs say the act of 1876 is unconstitutional, and that, as they paid their money under it, and in fear of prosecution, they are creditors of the county for the amount, and can recover it back. If they had a right, whether their appropriate remedy would be mandamus, in the first instance, we need not consider. The act seems to us constitutional. It requires a license as preliminary to carrying on a certain business, and exacts a license fee of one hundred dollars, which fee becomes county revenue. Whoever engages in the business is equally subject to the terms and provisions of the act. No discrimination is made in favor of residents over non-residents. It is said that the discrimination lies in requiring an expensive license as a condition of hiring laborers within the state to be employed beyond the state, without imposing a like burden on hiring for employment with-' in the limits of the state. But the license required is for carrying on a business; and it does not appear that hiring for internal employment has become a business here, or is pursued as such by any person or persons. This is enough to dispose of the objection. But if it were otherwise, no , authority has been cited, and we know of none, that would prevent the state from acting upon occupations (carried on within the state) in a way to incumber some of them with a tax or license fee, and leave other occupations, dissimilar • in tendency, though not in nature, to the free wfill of those who might be inclined to engage in them. Suppose two
Judgment affirmed.
