Kendrick v. State

• Decision Date: 09 February 1905
• Parties: KENDRICK v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

39 So. 203

142 Ala. 43

KENDRICK v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 9, 1905

Appeal from Elmore County Court; H. J. Lancaster, Judge.

Steve Kendrick was convicted of engaging in the business of an emigrant agent, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Rehearing denied June 30, 1905.

Frank W. Lull and Edwin F. Jones, for appellant.

Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SIMPSON J.

The defendant (appellant) was tried and convicted of the offense of engaging in or carrying on the business of an emigrant agent under the statute. Acts 1903, p. 344.

Appellant's contention is that this act is violative of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and also of section 31 of the Constitution of Alabama, providing that "emigration shall not be prohibited." We hold that in so far as the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States is concerned, the Supreme Court of the United States has settled this question in favor of the constitutionality of an act requiring a license tax on emigration agents. Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 21 S.Ct 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. See, also, Id. (Ga.) 35 S.E. 699 50 L. R. A. 685. We do not think that, in so far as this right of the state to require a reasonable license tax is concerned, there was any material difference between that case and the one now under consideration. As said in that case, so in this, under the act in question: "If it can be said to affect the freedom of egress from the state, or the freedom of contract, it is only incidentally and remotely. The individual laborer is left free to come and go at pleasure, and to make such contracts as he chooses, while those whose business it is to induce persons to enter into labor contracts and to change their location, though left free to contract, are subjected to taxation in respect of that business as other citizens are." Pages 274, 275, of 179 U.S., page 130 of 21 S.Ct. (45 L.Ed. 186).

For the same reason it can not be said that there is any violation of the emigration feature of the Constitution of Alabama.

It is undoubtedly true, as insisted upon by appellant, that the business of an emigration agent is not one of those occupations which are recognized as so injurious to the public as to justify discriminative legislation, under the police power of the state, with a view of suppressing the same. The license required in this case, if sustained at all must be under the general power to tax occupations, and, as decided by this court in other cases, while it is true that the constitutional provision as to uniformity of taxation does not apply to the license tax on occupations, and while absolute uniformity is unattainable, yet, if there is such great discrimination between members of the same class, in the matter of levying license taxes, as to indicate an intention to burden and crush out one, it will be declared unconstitutional.

Under our statutes all occupation taxes are evidenced by a receipt, which is called a "license." So that we do not think that the fact that this is spoken of in the act as a license renders the act any the less a tax on the occupation for revenue.

Nor does the fact that it is provided for by a special act, in place of being embodied in the general revenue bill, affect that question. Many items of revenue are included in the general revenue bill as a matter of...