Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

department to determine what measures shall be taken for the public welfare, and to provide the revenues for the support and due administration of the government throughout the State in all its subdivisions. Having the sole power to authorize the tax, it must equally possess the sole power to prescribe the means by which the tax shall be collected, and to designate the officers. through whom its will shall be enforced."

The determination of the precise amount of the tax which each individual or each piece of property shall pay according to the general rule legislatively laid down, is an administrative act. The determination whether the legislative rule is, constitutionally speaking, a proper one, and whether the administrative officials have properly followed it, as well as observed all the other requirements of law, is, of course, a judicial function. Thus the administrative official must in all cases, in his assessments both as to classes of persons and kinds of property, and as to rates of taxation, be guided by the law. Upon the other hand the legislature, when levying ad valorem taxes, has not the power itself, generally speaking, to declare the value of a specific piece, or of specific pieces of property for taxation purposes. Where, however, taxes are laid not according to values of property, but upon persons, as a capitation tax, or upon occupations, as license fees and tolls, or upon documents, as stamp duties, or upon number or quantities of goods ("specific" taxes), the legislature fixes in each case the amount of the contribution.

§ 261. Taxation and Eminent Domain.

4

The levying and collection of taxes amounts, of course, to the taking of private property for a public use, but the taxing power is distinct from that of eminent domain. When property is taken in exercise of the latter power the Fifth Amendment requires that the Federal Government shall make just compensation. When, however, property is taken under the taxing power

the

4 This question will be further considered in connection with the subject of special assessments.

persons so taxed are held compensated by the special benefits received. Cooley observes that while taxation and eminent domain rest upon substantially the same basis in that they both imply the taking of private property for the public use, the compensation made is different in the two cases. "When taxation takes money for the public use, the taxpayer receives, or is supposed to receive, his just compensation in the protection which government affords to life, liberty, and property, in the public conveniences which it provides, and in the increase in the value of possessions which comes from use to which the government applies the money raised by the tax; and these benefits amply support the individual burden." 5

§ 262. The Extent of the Taxing Power.

The power to tax is, from its very nature, one of the most important powers possessed by the State. Aside from express constitutional limitations, the power places every person, every occupation, and all forms of property subject to such pecuniary burdens as the legislature may see fit to impose, the manner of apportioning and enforcing the collections of the contributions levied being within the discretion of the law-making body which imposes them.

A classic statement of the extent of the taxing power is that of Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland. Marshall says: "The power of taxing the people and their property is essential to the very existence of government, and may be legitimately exercised on the objects to which it is applicable to the utmost extent to which the government may choose to carry it. The only security against the abuse of this power is found in the structure of the government itself. In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation. The people of a State, therefore, give to their government a right of taxing themselves and 5 Const. Lim., 7th ed., p. 715.

64 Wh. 316; 4 L. ed. 579.

their property, and as the exigencies of the government cannot be limited, they prescribe no limit to the exercise of this right, resting confidently on the interest of the legislator and on the influence of the constituents over their representatives to guard themselves against its abuse." "The power to tax," Marshall concludes, "involves the power to destroy."

§ 263. The Use of the Taxing Power, not for Revenue but for Regulation.

By definition and by primary purpose a tax is a means whereby a public governing power seeks to secure a revenue. It has been generally held, however, that a tax may be levied avowedly and exclusively not for revenue but as a means for regulating a matter which is within the legislature's power to control. Thus in Veazie Bank v. Fenno' the power of Congress to levy a tax as a means of regulating the currency is upheld, Chief Justice Chase rendering the opinion. The court say: "Having thus, in the exercise of undisputed constitutional powers, undertaken to provide a currency for the whole country, it cannot be questioned that Congress may, constitutionally, secure the benefit of it to the people by appropriate legislation. To this end, Congress has denied the quality of legal tender to foreign coins, and has provided by law against the imposition of counterfeit and base coin in the community. To the same end, Congress may restrain, by suitable enactments, the circulation as money of any notes not issued under its own authority. Without this power, indeed, its attempts to secure a sound and uniform currency for the country must be futile. Viewed in this light, as well as in the other light of a duty on contracts or property, we cannot doubt the constitutionality of the tax under consideration."

In the so-called Head Money Cases - Edye v. Robertsonwas contested an act of Congress of 1882 which, for the regulation of immigration, imposed upon the owners of steam or sailing vessels bringing passengers from a foreign port into the United

78 Wall. 533; 19 L. ed. 482.

8112 U. S. 580; 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 247; 28 L. ed. 798.

States, a tax of fifty cents for every such passenger. To this law it was objected that it was not levied to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States and that it was not uniform throughout the United States as required by the Constitution. After disposing of the question of uniformity, the court say: "But the true answer to all these questions is, that the power exercised in this instance is not the taxing power. The burden imposed on the ship owner by this statute is the mere incident of the regulation of commerce, of that branch of foreign commerce which is involved in immigration. The title of the Act, ‘An Act to Regulate Immigration,' is well chosen. It describes as well as any short sentence can describe it, the real purpose and effect of the statute. Its provisions, from beginning to end, relate to the subject of immigration, and they are aptly designed to mitigate the evils inherent in the business of bringing foreigners to this country, as those evils affect both the immigrant and the people among whom he is suddenly brought and left to his own resources. It is true not much is said about protecting the ship owner. But he is the man who reaps the profit from the transaction, who has the means to protect himself and knows well how to do it, and whose obligations in the premises need the aid of the statute for their enforcement. The sum demanded of him is not, therefore, strictly speaking, a tax or duty within the meaning of the Constitution. The money thus raised, though paid into the Treasury, is appropriated in advance to the uses of this statute, and does not go to the general support of the government. It constitutes a fund raised from those who are engaged in the transportation of these passengers, and who make a profit out of it, for the temporary care of the passengers whom they bring among us and for the protection of the citizens among whom they are landed. If this is an expedient regulation of commerce by Congress, and the end to be attained is one falling within that power, the Act is not void because, within a loose and more extended sense than was used in the Constitution, it is called a tax."

In Packet Co. v. Keokuk, and Packet Co. v. St. Louis1o municipal ordinances imposing taxes for the use of wharves belonging to the cities, the amount of which was regulated by the tonnage of the vessels, were held not to be tonnage taxes within the meaning of the constitutional provision that "no State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage."

In these cases it is seen that the view taken is that though the laws levy a contribution to the State and thus result in a revenue to the State, they are not, correctly speaking, tax laws at all. Not being, in fact, tax laws, they are not subject to the constitutional limitations upon revenue measures as regards uniformity, apportionment, etc.

A different proposition from the one just discussed, is that a legislature, by a law framed as a tax measure, may, in effect, subject to regulation or even to destruction an enterprise over which it has no direct power of control. This point was squarely raised, with reference to the power of the Federal Government in the comparatively recent case of McCray v. United States,11 decided in 1904.

In this case was questioned the constitutionality of a law of Congress levying a tax of ten cents a pound upon oleomargarine, artificially colored to look like butter. The contention was that this rate was so high as to be surely prohibitive of the manufacture and sale of such oleomargarine, and that, therefore, it was to be presumed that the motive of those enacting the law was not that a revenue should be secured for the Federal Government, but that the manufacture should be prevented; and this, it was argued, rendered the law an unconstitutional effort upon the part of Congress to regulate the manufacture of a commodity within the States. The Supreme Court, however, held that the law being upon its face a revenue measure, its ultimate effect or the motives of its enactors might not be judicially inquired into. The scope and effect of a law may be inquired into, the court say, to determine whether the act is, in general character, within the legislative power of Congress, but, that determined in the affirma

995 U. S. 80; 24 L. ed. 377.

10 100 U. S. 423; 25 L. ed. 688.

11 195 U. S. 27; 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 769; 49 L. ed. 78.

« PředchozíPokračovat »