39 S.E. 785 | S.C. | 1901
October 5, 1901. The opinion of the Court was delivered by *29 The facts are thus succinctly stated by the appellant's attorneys: "This is an action brought by the plaintiff, the Southern Railway Company, against the defendant, J.R. Kay, as county treasurer of Oconee County, to recover from the defendant the sum of $224.72, and costs, the amount of taxes collected of plaintiff under protest by a levy of one-half of one mill on the property of plaintiff for road purposes made by the board of county commissioners for Oconee County. The contention of plaintiff is that the county commissioners had no authority to levy such tax, and such tax is unlawful. The defendant admits the collection of the tax and that the payment was made under protest, and alleges that the levy was authorized by the Constitution of the State and by act of 1896, 22 Stat., 238, sec. 26. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals."
We will first consider whether the levy was authorized under the provisions of the Constitution. The provisions bearing on this question are the following sections of article x.:
"Section 1. The General Assembly shall provide by law for a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation, and shall prescribe regulations to secure a just valuation for taxation of all property. * * *
"Sec. 2. The General Assembly shall provide for an annual tax sufficient to defray the estimated expenses of the State for each year, and whenever it shall happen that the ordinary expenses of the State for any year shall exceed the income of the State for such year, the General Assembly shall provide for levying a tax for the ensuing year sufficient with other sources of income to pay the deficiency of the preceding year, together with the estimated expenses for the ensuing year.
"Sec. 3. No tax shall be levied except in pursuance of a law which shall distinctly state the object of the same to which object the tax shall be applied.
"Sec. 5. The corporate authorities of counties, townships, school districts, cities, towns and villages, may be vested *30 with power to assess and collect taxes for corporate purposes, such taxes to be uniform in respect to persons and property within the jurisdiction of the body imposing the same. * * *
"Sec. 6. * * * The General Assembly shall not have power to authorize any county or township to levy a tax or issue bonds for any purpose, except for educational purposes, to build and repair public roads, buildings and bridges, to maintain and support prisoners, pay jurors, county officers and for litigation, quarantine and court expenses and for ordinary county purposes, to support paupers and pay past indebtedness.
"Sec. 13. The General Assembly shall provide for the assessment of all property for taxation; and State, county, township, school, municipal and all other taxes shall be levied on the same assessment which shall be that made for State taxes; and the taxes for the subdivisions of the State shall be levied and collected by the respective fiscal authorities."
In the case of the State v. R.R. Co.,
The provisions of the Constitution upon which the appellant mainly relies is that portion of sec. 13 to the effect that "the taxes for the subdivisions of the State shall be levied and collected by the respective fiscal authorities thereof." The meaning of the word "levied," therein used, is to be determined in connection with a consideration of the other provisions of the Constitution. The word "levy," as hereinbefore shown, is frequently used in more than one sense, and its meaning in a particular instance is to be determined by resort to the context. It is sometimes used for the purpose of conferring all the powers incident to the creation and collection of a tax; as when "corporate authorities are vested with power to assess and collect taxes for corporate purposes," while, again, it is only intended to confer administrative powers in the collection of the tax, without reference to its creation, and this is the sense in which it is used in the 13th section. By this construction alone can force and effect be given to all the foregoing provisions of the Constitution. It will be observed that the 13th section makes no reference to the creation of the tax, which only could be done by the General Assembly, or by the county after the General Assembly had "vested it with power to assess and collect taxes for corporate purposes." The intention *34 was that the taxes for the subdivisions of the State should be collected by the respective fiscal authorities thereof, whether imposed by the General Assembly or the corporate authorities of counties, c., when vested by the General Assembly with power to assess and collect taxes for corporate purposes.
From the foregoing provisions of the Constitution we deduce the following conclusions:
1. That the word "assessment," in the provision that "State, county, township, school, municipal and all other taxes shall be levied on the same assessment, which shall be that made for State taxes," means "valuation."
2. That the word "law," in the requirement (sec. 3) that "no tax shall be levied except in pursuance of a law which shall distinctly state the object of the same, to which object the tax shall be applied," means an act of the General Assembly, except when there is a provision of the Constitution that is self-executing, as in the case of the three mills tax for school purposes. This construction is supported by sec. 16, of art. III., which is as follows: "The style of all laws shall be: `Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina.'" There may be a compliance with the requirements of sec. 3, either by an act of the General Assembly levying the tax, or by an act of the General Assembly vesting corporate authorities of counties, c., with power to assess and collect taxes for corporate purposes, when the act distinctly states the object of the same, and the corporate authorities aforesaid levy the tax in accordance with the provisions of such act.
3. That the power to collect the taxes for the subdivisions of the State is conferred by the Constitution upon the fiscal authorities of such subdivisions, whether the tax was created by any act of the General Assembly, or by the said corporate authorities under an act of the General Assembly.
4. That the tax was not authorized by the Constitution without legislative action.
We will next consider whether the levy was authorized by *35 act of 1896, 22 Stat., 238, sec. 26. His Honor, the Circuit Judge, ruled that section 26 of the act of 1896 authorized the board of county commissioners to levy annually a sum not exceeding one mill in the respective counties, and that the General Assembly, by the act of 1899, itself levied a tax of one mill for road purposes. That the act of 1899 necessarily had the effect of repealing and limiting the powers of the board of county commissioners. Sec. 26 of the act of 1896 is as follows: "Sec. 26. That the county board of commissioners of said counties be, and they are hereby, authorized to levy annually a sum not exceeding one mill on all the taxable property of the respective counties, which shall constitute a part of the county road fund, to be expended by the said board in the same manner as is provided by law for the use and expenditure of the commutation tax in lieu of road duty; and such tax shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as is provided by law for the collection of taxes levied for ordinary county purposes: Provided, That the provisions of this section shall not apply to Orangeburg County."
The words of the act entitled "An act to raise supplies and make appropriations for the fiscal year, commencing January 1st, 1899," by which the levy of one-half of one mill for road purposes for Oconee County are: "For roads, one-half of one mill (1-2)." The legislature, by sec. 26 of the act of 1896, vested the board of county commissioners of Oconee County with power to levy annually a sum not exceeding one mill, which should constitute a part of the county road fund, but this did not prevent the General Assembly from levying an additional tax for the same purpose. The two acts are consistent, and there was error, therefore, in ruling that the act of 1899 repealed, by implication, sec. 26 of the act of 1896.
It is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed. *36