assessments for personal property * made against persons [* 500] not residing in the district would also be void, unless made with reference to the actual presence of the property in such district.1 In Wells v. City of Weston,2 the Supreme Court of Missouri deny the right of the legislature to subject property located in one taxing district to assessment in another, upon the express ground that it is in substance the arbitrary taxation of the property of one class of citizens for the benefit of another class. The case was one where the legislature sought to subject real estate lying outside the limits of a city to taxation for city purposes, on the theory that it received some benefit from the city government, and ought to contribute to its support. In Kentucky 3 and Iowa * decisions have been made which, while affirming the same principle as the case above cited, go still further, and declare that it is not competent for the legislature to increase the limits of a city, in order to include therein farming lands, occupied by the owner for agricultural purposes, and not required for either streets or houses, or other purposes of a town, where the purpose is merely to increase the city revenue by taxation. The courts admit that the extension of the limits of a city or town, so as to include its actual enlargement, as manifested by houses and population, is to be deemed a legitimate exercise of the taxing power, but they declare that an indefinite or unreasonable extension, so as to embrace lands or farms at a distance from the local government, does not rest upon the same authority. And although it may be a delicate as well as a difficult duty for the judiciary to interpose, the court had no doubt but strictly there are limits beyond which the legislative discretion cannot go. It is not every case of injustice or oppression which may be reached; and it is not every case which will authorize a judicial tribunal to inquire into the 1 People v. Supervisors of Chenango, 11 N. Y. 563; Mygatt v. Washburn, 15 N. Y. 316; Brown v. Smith, 24 Barb. 419; Hartland v. Church, 47 Me. 169; Lessee of Hughey v. Horrell, 2 Ohio, 231. 2 22 Mo. 385. To the same effect is In re Flatbush, 60 N. Y. 398. Compare case of State Tax on Foreign Held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300; St. 66 minute operation of laws imposing taxes, or defining the boundaries of local jurisdictions. The extension of the limits of the local authority may in some cases be greater than is necessary to include the adjacent population, or territory laid out into [501] city lots, without a case being presented in which the courts would be called upon to apply a nice and exact scrutiny as to its practical operation. It must be a case of flagrant injustice and palpable wrong, amounting to the taking of private property without such compensation in return as the taxpayer is at liberty to consider a fair equivalent for the tax." This decision has been subsequently recognized and followed as authority, in the last-named State.1 The second essential is that there should be uniformity in the manner of the assessment, and approximate equality in the amount of exactions within the district; and to this end that all the objects of taxation within the district should be embraced. The correctness of this principle will be conceded, but whether in practice it has been applied or not, it may not always be easy to determine. "With the single exception of specific taxes," says Christiancy, J., in Woodbridge v. Detroit," the terms 'tax' and 'assessment' both, I think, when applied to property, and especially to lands, always include the idea of some ratio or rule of apportionment, so that of the whole sum to be raised, the part paid by one piece of property shall bear some known relation to, or be affected by, that paid by another. Thus, if one hundred dollars are to be raised from tracts A, B, and C, the amount paid by A will reduce by so 1 Langworthy v. Dubuque, 13 Iowa, 86; Fulton v. Davenport, 17 Iowa, 404; Buell v. Ball, 20 Iowa, 282. These cases were cited and followed in Bradshaw v. Omaha, 1 Neb. 16. These cases, however, do not hold the legislative act which enlarges the city limits to be absolutely void, but only hold that they will limit the exercise of the taxing power as nearly as practicable to the line where the extension of the boundaries ceases to be beneficial to the proprietor in a municipal point of view. For this purpose they enter into an inquiry of fact, whether the lands in question, in view of their relative position to the growing and improved parts of the town, and partaking more or less of the benefits of municipal government, are proper subjects of munici pal taxation; and if not, they enjoin the collection of such taxes. It would seem as if there must be great practical difficulties - if not some of principle-in making this disposition of such a case. They have nevertheless been followed repeatedly in Iowa. 2 8 Mich. 301. See also Chicago v. Larned, 34 Ill. 203; Creote v. Chicago, 56 Ill. 422. much that to be paid by B and C, and so of the others. In the case of specific taxes, as well as duties and imposts, though the amount paid by one is not affected by that paid by another, yet there is a known and fixed relation of one to the other, a uniform rate by which it is imposed upon the whole species or class of property or persons to which the specific tax applies; and this is so of duties and imposts, whether specific or ad valorem. To compel individuals to contribute money or property to the use of the public, without reference to any common ratio, and without requiring the sum * paid by one piece or kind of [* 502] property, or by one person, to bear any relation whatever to that paid by another, is, it seems to me, to lay a forced contribution, not a tax, duty, or impost, within the sense of these terms, as applied to the exercise of powers by any enlightened or responsible government." In the case of Knowlton v. Supervisors of Rock County,1 an important and interesting question arose, involving the very point now under discussion. The Constitution of Wisconsin provides that the rule of taxation shall be uniform," which, if we are correct in what we have already stated, is no more than an affirmance of a settled principle of constitutional law. The city of Janesville included within its territorial limits, not only the land embraced within the recorded plat of the village of Janesville and its additions, but also a large quantity of the adjacent farming or agricultural lands. Conceiving the owners of these lands to be greatly and unequally burdened by taxation for the support of the city government, the legislature passed an act declaring that "in no case shall the real and personal property within the territorial limits of said city, and not included within the territorial limits of the recorded plat of the village of Janesville, or of any additions to said village, which may be used, occupied, or reserved for agricultural or horticultural purposes, be subject to an annual tax to defray the current expenses of said city, exceeding one-half of one per cent, nor for the repair and building of roads and bridges, and the support of the poor, more than one-half as much on each dollar's valuation shall be levied for such purposes as on the property within such recorded plats, nor shall the same be subject to any tax for any of the purposes mentioned in § 3 of 19 Wis. 410. minute operation of laws imposing taxes, or defining the boundaries of local jurisdictions. The extension of the limits of the local authority may in some cases be greater than is necessary to include the adjacent population, or territory laid out into [* 501] city lots, without a * case being presented in which the courts would be called upon to apply a nice and exact scrutiny as to its practical operation. It must be a case of flagrant injustice and palpable wrong, amounting to the taking of private property without such compensation in return as the taxpayer is at liberty to consider a fair equivalent for the tax." This decision has been subsequently recognized and followed as authority, in the last-named State.1 The second essential is that there should be uniformity in the manner of the assessment, and approximate equality in the amount of exactions within the district; and to this end that all the objects of taxation within the district should be embraced. The correctness of this principle will be conceded, but whether in practice it has been applied or not, it may not always be easy to determine. "With the single exception of specific taxes," says Christiancy, J., in Woodbridge v. Detroit,2 "the terms tax' and assessment' both, I think, when applied to property, and especially to lands, always include the idea of some ratio or rule of apportionment, so that of the whole sum to be raised, the part paid by one piece of property shall bear some known relation to, or be affected by, that paid by another. Thus, if one hundred dollars are to be raised from tracts A, B, and C, the amount paid by A will reduce by so 1 Langworthy v. Dubuque, 13 Iowa, 86; Fulton v. Davenport, 17 Iowa, 404; Buell v. Ball, 20 Iowa, 282. These cases were cited and followed in Bradshaw v. Omaha, 1 Neb. 16. These cases, however, do not hold the legislative act which enlarges the city limits to be absolutely void, but only hold that they will limit the exercise of the taxing power as nearly as practicable to the line where the extension of the boundaries ceases to be beneficial to the proprietor in a municipal point of view. For this purpose they enter into an inquiry of fact, whether the lands in question, in view of their relative position to the growing and improved parts of the town, and partaking more or less of the benefits of municipal government, are proper subjects of municipal taxation; and if not, they enjoin the collection of such taxes. It would seem as if there must be great practical difficulties - if not some of principle-in making this disposition of such a case. They have nevertheless been followed repeatedly in Iowa. 2 8 Mich. 301. See also Chicago v. Larned, 34 III. 203; Creote v. Chicago, 56 Ill. 422. much that to be paid by B and C, and so of the others. In the case of specific taxes, as well as duties and imposts, though the amount paid by one is not affected by that paid by another, yet there is a known and fixed relation of one to the other, a uniform rate by which it is imposed upon the whole species or class of property or persons to which the specific tax applies; and this is so of duties and imposts, whether specific or ad valorem. To compel individuals to contribute money or property to the use of the public, without reference to any common ratio, and without requiring the sum * paid by one piece or kind of [* 502] property, or by one person, to bear any relation whatever to that paid by another, is, it seems to me, to lay a forced contribution, not a tax, duty, or impost, within the sense of these terms, as applied to the exercise of powers by any enlightened or responsible government." In the case of Knowlton v. Supervisors of Rock County,' an important and interesting question arose, involving the very point now under discussion. The Constitution of Wisconsin provides that the rule of taxation shall be uniform," which, if we are correct in what we have already stated, is no more than an affirmance of a settled principle of constitutional law. The city of Janesville included within its territorial limits, not only the land embraced within the recorded plat of the village of Janesville and its additions, but also a large quantity of the adjacent farming or agricultural lands. Conceiving the owners of these lands to be greatly and unequally burdened by taxation for the support of the city government, the legislature passed an act declaring that "in no case shall the real and personal property within the territorial limits of said city, and not included within the territorial limits of the recorded plat of the village of Janesville, or of any additions to said village, which may be used, occupied, or reserved for agricultural or horticultural purposes, be subject to an annual tax to defray the current expenses of said city, exceeding one-half of one per cent, nor for the repair and building of roads and bridges, and the support of the poor, more than one-half as much on each dollar's valuation shall be levied for such purposes as on the property within such recorded plats, nor shall the same. be subject to any tax for any of the purposes mentioned in § 3 of 19 Wis. 410. |