State v. Wheeler

• Decision Date: 20 March 1906
• Citation: 53 S.E. 358,141 N.C. 773
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE. v. WHEELER.

53 S.E. 358

(141 N.C. 773)

STATE.

v.WHEELER.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 20, 1906.

1. Taxation—Double Taxation.

There is no constitutional prohibition against double taxation.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 45, Cent. Dig. Taxation, § 104.]

2. Same—Labor on Highways.

Laws 1903, p. 931, c. 551, as amended by Laws 1905, p. 815, c. 667, requiring the improvement of highways by labor of citizens, is not objectionable as double taxation.

3. Constitutional Law—Equal Protection op Laws—Federal Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment.

Const. U. S. Amend. 14, prohibiting a denial of equal protection of the laws, does not require equality in the levying of taxes by the state; the levy of state taxes being a matter solely within the legislative jurisdiction of the state.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 10, Cent. Dig. Constitutional Law, § 685.] '

4. Same—Discrimination.

Laws 1903, p. 931, c. 551, as amended by Laws 1905, p. 815, c. 667, requiring improvement of highways by citizen labor supplemented by a tax levied on both town and country property is not invalid as discriminating in favor of dwellers of towns against dwellers in the country; the dwellers in towns being required to keep their streets in condition at a greater expense than the value of the statutory labor required on the country roads.

5. Taxation—Poll Taxes.

Laws 1903, p. 931, c. 551, as amended by Laws 1905, p. 815, c. 667, requiring citizen labor on country highways, does not impose a poll or capitation tax which Const, art. 5, §§ 1, 2, requires to be applied to purposes of education and the support of the poor.

6. Same—Property Tax—Time.

The time of a citizen is not property in the sense that it can be liable to a property tax.

Appeal from Superior Court, Wake County; Justice, Judge.

T. J. Wheeler was convicted of. failing to work on the public roads, and he appeals. Affirmed.

R. H. Battle and S. G. Ryan, for appellant

The Attorney General and H. E. Norris, for the State.

CLARK, C. J. The defendant appeals from a conviction and sentence for failing to work the public roads of Wake county as required by chapter 667, p. 815, Laws 1905, amendatory of chapter 551, p. 931, Laws 1903. The appeal rests upon the alleged unconstitutionality of the statute. The defendant contends: (1) Time is money. Labor is a man's property, and therefore to exact his labor and time to work the roads is to levy a tax on property, and such is unconstiutional unless ad valorem. (2) that if working the road is a poll tax. the act is unconstitutional, because it exacts this labor only of "able bodied male persons between the ages of 21 and 45" and excepts "residents in incorporated cities and towns and such as are by law exempted or excused, " whereas the poll tax (Const, art. 5, § 1) is to be laid on "every male inhabitant between the ages of 21 and 50." (3) That the requirement to work the roads is not placed upon those living in incorporated towns and cities, and therefore there is a denial of the equal protection of the laws required by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (4) That in as much as the roads are now worked partly by taxation, supplemented by labor exacted by the statute, and the latter is a property tax (a man's labor being his property), therefore this is double taxation.

These points have been repeatedly passed upon adversely to the contentions of the defendant. State v. Sharp, 125 N. C. 628. 34 S. E. 264, 74 Am. St. Rep. 663, which has been cited and approved in State v. Covington, 125 N. C. 641, 34 S. E. 272; State v. Cater, 129 N. C. 560, 40 S. E. 11; Brooks v. Tripp, 135 N. C. 161, 47 S. E. 401; State v. Hollo-man, 139 N. C. 648, 52 S. E. 408. But counsel ask us to reconsider them, and we have given the matter full deliberation. For nearly 250 years the roads of this state were worked solely by the conscription of labor. It may have been inequitable, but it was never thought by any one to be unconstitutional, nor has the idea been advanced heretofore that to work the roads by labor was to work them by taxation. The validity of working the roads by labor is sustained in State v. Halifax, 15 N. C. 345, and has been recognized in countless trials for failure to work the roads. Under this statute, Wake county works its roads partly by labor supplemented by funds raised by taxation and other funds and the work of its convicts. If the exaction of the labor of residents of the locality is, as counsel contend, a tax upon property, then we simply have a higher tax, but not double taxation. The tax does not seem to be more than enough to keep the roads in good order, but if it should so prove, the people themselves, acting through their elected representatives in the General Assembly and the board of county comissioners, will reduce it. The tendency of the times is to require better roads, which necessarily demands higher taxes for road purposes, which is more than offset, it is claimed, by the benefits derived from better roads. But that is a matter of legislation and administration. The courts cannot meddle with it. Nor is there any constitutional prohibition against double taxation. Commissioners v. Tobacco Co., 116 N. C. 448, '21 S. E. 423; Cooley, Const. Lim. (7th Ed.) 738, and cases there cited. It exists in many instances that will readily occur to any one, as the taxation of mortgages and indebtedness in the hands of a creditor, and taxation at the same time of mortgaged property, and of the real and personal property of a debtor, without reduction by reason of the mortgage or other indebtedness; the taxation of the tangible property of a corporation and also of its capital stock and of its franchises, and also of the certificates of shares in the hands of the shareholders. Sturges v. Carter, 114 U. S. 511, 5 Sup. Ct 1014, 29 L. Ed. 240; Com'rs v. Tobacco Co., supra. There are many other instances, but this is a matter of legislation. Certainly this is not double taxation any more than taxing the dweller in town to keep up his streets (all of which falls upon him), and also laying a tax on his property to aid in working the roads.

Nor does the fourteenth amendment require equality in levying taxation by the state, if this exaction of labor be taxation. How a state shall levy its taxation is a matter solely for its Legislature, subject to such restrictions as the state Constitution throws around legislative action. If, on the other hand, working the roads by labor is a police regulation or a public duty, certainly it is not a matter of federal supervision. Besides, as the dwellers in the towns keep up their streets at a greater expense than the value of the statutory labor put on the roads, there is no discrimination of which the defendant can complain, especially as the tax money expended on the roads to supplement the statutory labor is levied on town property as well...