Salt Lake City v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 02 April 1915
• Docket Number: 2675
• Citation: 46 Utah 60,148 P. 1104
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: SALT LAKE CITY v. WILSON

148 P. 1104

46 Utah 60

SALT LAKE CITY v. WILSON

No. 2675

Supreme Court of Utah

April 2, 1915

Appeal from District Court, Third District; Hon. F. C. Loofbourow Judge.

Action by Salt Lake City, a municipal corporation, against M. E Wilson.

Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and Remanded, with directions.

H. J Dininny, City Atty., Aaron Myers and W. H. Folland, Asst. City Attys., for appellant.

M. E. Wilson for respondent.

FRICK, J. STRAUP, C. J., and McCARTY, J., concur.

OPINION

FRICK, J.

Salt Lake City, hereafter called appellant, commenced this action in the City Court of Salt Lake City against the defendant to recover a road poll tax amounting to two dollars. The action was based upon a city ordinance, which was approved June 15, 1909. The ordinance in question was adopted pursuant to Chapter 118, Laws Utah 1909, which was approved March 23, 1909, and went into effect May 12th of that year. The ordinance is fully set forth in the complaint, together with the notice that was served on the defendant by the "street supervisor" of Salt Lake City. The defendant demurred to the complaint upon the ground "that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action." He assailed both the ordinance and said Chapter 118 as being unconstitutional and therefore void. Defendant supplemented his general demurrer by specifically enumerating the grounds which he contended vitiated Chapter 118 and the ordinance aforesaid. The City Court duly certified the action to the District Court of Salt Lake County where, after a hearing upon the demurrer, it was sustained. The appellant elected to stand upon its complaint, whereupon the District Court entered judgment dismissing the action, and hence this appeal.

In view that the title of the act in question is also assailed upon the ground of duplicity, we quote it in full:

"An act defining powers of county commissioners as to roads; appointing county road commissioner, defining his duties, providing an annual road poll tax; specifying who shall be liable and manner of collecting and expending the same, repealing Chapter 2, Title 30, and also Title 64, complied Laws of Utah, 1907."

Section 1 of the act is divided into six separate divisions. In the first the county commissioners of the several counties of this state are required to appoint biennially a county road commissioner, to fix his compensation and to remove him for cause. In the divisions following are defined the powers and duties of the county commissioners respecting the platting, abolishing, maintaining, and improving the public roads of the several counties. Section 2 provides that a record be kept by the county clerks of all orders and proceedings of the county commissioners respecting the public roads. Sections 3 and 4 define the powers and duties of the county road commissioner, among which are that he serve notice on persons who, under the law, are "liable to the payment of road poll tax" and to collect said "road poll tax." Section 5 provides that the county commissioners may require special reports from the county road commissioners at any time. Section 6, which is the section that is more particularly assailed by the defendant, so far as material here, reads as follows:

"Two dollars lawful money is an annual road poll tax upon every man over twenty-one and under fifty years of age, not physically incapacitated to work and not exempted by law. Within incorporated cities or towns, said road poll tax may be collected and expended under such regulations as may be by the city ordinance prescribed in road improvements."

Section 7 provides for the collection of the road poll tax in the county at large by the county road commissioner. Section 8 prescribes a penalty for failure to pay the road poll tax. Section 9 requires the county road commissioner to prepare a list of the names and addresses of all persons subject to pay the road poll tax outside of cities and towns. Sections 10 and 11 provide who shall be exempt and how the fact of exemption shall be ascertained and certified. The exemptions are such as are usual in such laws, namely, volunteer firemen and officers, musicians and members of the National Guard, etc.

The constitutionality of the act is assailed on the following grounds: (1) That it offends against Article 1, Section 24, of our Constitution, which reads as follows: "All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation." (2) That it also violates Article 4, Section 1 of that instrument, which provides:

"The rights of citizens of the State of Utah to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex. Both male and female citizens of this state shall enjoy equally all civil, political and religious rights and privileges."

(3) That it is contrary to Article 13, Section 3, which in substance, provides that the Legislature shall provide for a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation, and shall, by general law, provide such regulations as shall secure a just valuation for taxation of all property, "so that every person and corporation shall pay a tax in proportion to the value of his, her or its property." (4) That it is violative of Article 6, Section 23, which reads as follows:

"Except general appropriation bills, and bills for the codification and general revision of laws, no bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title."

There are other constitutional provisions referred to in connection with the foregoing, but they have no special application here.

In order to obtain a more comprehensive view of the legal questions involved we shall give a brief history of the so called road poll tax law as the same has been in force in the Territory and State of Utah for many years. Chapter 118, as it now stands, is composed of Chapter 2, Title 30, and of Title 64 of the Laws of Utah 1907. Chapter 2, Title 30, comprised Sections 1134 to 1138, inclusive, of said Compiled Laws, and Title 64 was composed of Sections 1744 to 1751, inclusive, of said compilation. Sections 1134 to 1138 are likewise found in the Revised Statutes of Utah of 1898, by the same numbers, and Sections 1744 to 1751 are also contained in that revision, under the same numbers, and are there designated as Title 53. Much that is contained in all of Sections 1134 to 1138 and Sections 1744 to 1751 is also found in Comp. Laws Utah 1888, Sections 2065 to 2092, inclusive. Section 2077 of that compilation is, in its terms, quite similar to Section 6 of Chapter 118, which is the section in question here. Indeed, the language referring to cities and towns is practically the same as in Section 6. It is as follows:

"Within incorporated towns or cities said poll tax may be collected under such regulations as may be by the ordinance provided and be used by said towns or cities for improving" the streets.

Sections similar to 1744-1751 are found in Comp. Laws Utah 1876, p. 165. It is there made to appear that the first poll tax law in force in the Territory of Utah was approved on the 16th day of January, 1862, and by referring to the several compilations and revisions of the laws of the Territory and State of Utah it will be found that practically the same law respecting the payment of a road poll tax that is now in force has been in force for more than 50 years, the only difference being that those who were subject to the tax could perform two days' labor or, under the laws of 1876, pay $ 1.50 in cash, while under the laws of 1888 they were required to perform two days' labor or pay three dollars in cash. Such continued to be the law until Chapter 118 was passed, when the amount was reduced to two dollars payable in money. There is, therefore, nothing that is really new in Chapter 118. The chapter, in effect, is merely a consolidation of Sections 1134-1138, which composed Chapter 2 of Title 30 and Sections 1744-1751 which composed Title 64 of the Comp. Laws 1907, with such changes, modifications and additions as the development of the public roads and changes in the government thereof and the laws generally would naturally bring about. That part which relates to the road poll tax is, however, practically the same, except that the amount is reduced from three dollars to two dollars and the duty of performing labor is eliminated. It is the latter change or feature, however of Chapter 118 that the defendant seems to think changes the nature or character of the road poll tax from a police regulation to a tax proper. That such is his contention is made apparent by reference to page 6 of his brief, where he says:

"At the outset it should be remembered that we are not dealing with a statute relative to a highway assessment payable in labor, but we are dealing with a statute requiring the payment of money only, a state capitation or poll tax."

It is as manifest from the law itself as it could well be made that the present road poll tax is precisely what it always has been in this state, namely, an imposition in the nature of a police regulation, not a tax in the sense that taxes are spoken of in our Constitution and statutes when the subject of general taxation is under consideration. The only case that we have been able to find (Hassett v Walls, 9 Nev. 387) which supports defendant's theory that the road poll tax is a tax as that term is generally applied makes no distinction whatever between a so-called poll tax that may be discharged by performing labor and one that is payable in money. Nor is such a distinction made in the numerous cases in which it is held that road or highway poll taxes do not come within the general purview of the constitutional and statutory provisions relating to general taxation. In the case of ...