« PreviousContinue »
State. The rule is well settled that if one part of a statute is valid and another invalid the former may be enforced, if it be not so connected with or dependent on the other as to make it clear that the legislature would not have passed that part without the part that may be deemed invalid.
But it is contended that the statute contravenes the Fourteenth Amendment, in that it denies to the Oil Company the equal protection of the laws. This position is based mainly on the ground that the statute by imposing a tax on wholesale dealers in coal oil, naphtha, benzine, mineral oils refined from petroleum, and all other mineral oils, while omitting to put any such tax whatever on wholesale dealers in other articles of merchandisesuch, for instance, as sugar, bacon, coal and iron-so discriminates against wholesale dealers in the several articles specified in $ 9 as to deny them the equal protection of the laws. This view gives to the Amendment a scope that could not have been contemplated at the time of its adoption. The tax in question is conceded to be an occupation tax simply. It was imposed under the authority of the state constitution, providing that the legislature may "impose occupation taxes, both upon natural persons and occupations other than municipal, doing any business in this State,
except that persons engaged in mechanical and agricultural pursuits shall never be required to pay an occupation tax.” It is not questioned that the State may classify occupations for purposes of taxation. In its discretion it may tax all, or it may tax one or some, taking care to accord to all in the same class equality of rights. The statute in respect of the particular class of wholesale dealers mentioned in it is to be referred to the governmental power of the State, in its discretion, to classify occupations for purposes of taxation. The State, keeping within the limits of its own fundamental law, can adopt any system of taxation or any classification that it deems best wy it for the common good and the maintenance of its government, provided such classification be not in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A leading case on the general subject is Bell's Gap Rd. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232, 237. In that case a question arose as to whether a statute of Pennsylvania, subjecting bonds and other securities issued by corporations, to a higher rate of taxation than was imposed on other moneyed securities, was a denial of the equal protection of the laws to corporations. This court held that there was no discrimination which the State was not competent to make, saying: “All corporate securities are subject to the same regulations. The provision in the Fourteenth Amendment, that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, was not intended to prevent a State from adjusting its system of taxation in all proper and reasonable ways. It may, if it chooses, exempt certain classes of property from any taxation at all, such as churches, libraries and the property of charitable institutions. It may impose different specific taxes upon different trades and professions, and may vary the rates of excise upon various products; it may tax real estate and personal property in a different manner; it may tax visible property only, and not tax securities for payment of money; it may allow deductions for indebtedness, or not allow them. All such regulations, and those of like character, so long as they proceed within reasonable limits and general usages, are within the discretion of the state legislature, or the people of the State in framing their constitution. But clear and hostile discriminations against particular persons and classes, especially such as are of an unusual character, unknown to the practice of our governments, might be obnoxious to the constitutional prohibition. It would, however, be impracticable and unwise to attempt to lay down any general rule or definition on the subject, that would include all cases. They must be decided as they arise. We think that we are safe in saying, that the Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to compel the State to adopt an iron rule of equal taxation. If that were its proper construction, it would not only supersede all those constitutional provisions
and laws of some of the States, whese object is to secure equality of taxation, and which are usually accompanied with qualifications deemed material; but it would render nugatory those discriminations which the best interests of society require; which are necessary for the encouragement of needed and useful industries, and the discouragement of intemperance and vice; and which every State, in one form or another, deems it expedient to adopt."
In Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 134 U. S. 594, involving the constitutional validity of a law taxing corporate franchises and business, the court held that the statute was not a denial of the equal protection of laws. It said that the Amendment "does not prevent the classification of property for taxation subjecting one kind of property to one rate of taxation, and another kind of property to a different ratedistinguishing between franchises, licenses and privileges, and visible and tangible property, and between real and personal property. Nor does the Amendment prohibit special legislation. Indeed, the greater part of all legislation is special, either in the extent to which it operates, or the objects sought to be obtained by it. And when such legislation applies to artificial bodies, it is not open to objection if all such bodies are treated alike under similar circumstances and conditions, in respect to the privileges conferred upon them and the liabilities to which they are subjected. Under the statute of New York all corporations, joint stock companies and associations of the same kind are subjected to the same tax. There is the same rule applicable to all under the same conditions in determining the rate of taxation. There is no discrimination in favor of one against another of the same class.”
So, in Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540, 562: “A tax may be imposed only upon certain callings and trades, for when the State exerts its power to tax, it is not bound to tax all pursuits or all property that may be legitimately taxed for governmental purposes. It would be an intolerable burden if a State could not tax any property or
calling unless, at the same time, it taxed all property or all callings. Its discretion in such matters is very great and should be exercised solely with reference to the general welfare as involved in the necessity of taxation for the support of the State. A State may in its wisdom classify property for purposes of taxation, and the exercise of its discretion is not to be questioned in a court of the United States, so long as the classification does not invade rights secured by the Constitution of the United States."
There are many other cases in which the court considered the meaning and scope of the constitutional guaranty of the equal protection of the laws. We will refer to a few of them. .
In Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U. S. 321, 337, the court sustained, as not inconsistent with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a Kentucky statute providing for the assessment of railroad property for purposes of taxation in a mode different from that prescribed as to ordinary real estate, or as to the property of corporations chartered for other purposes, such as bridge, mining, street railway, manufacturing, gas and water companies. It said that “the rule of equality, in respect to the subject, only requires the same means and methods to be applied impartially to all the constituents of each class, so that the law shall operate equally and uniformly upon all persons in similar circumstances. There is no objection, therefore, to the discrimination made as between railroad companies and other corporations in the methods and instrumentalities by which the value of their property is ascertained.” In Magoun v. Ilinois Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 294, which involved the constitutionality of an inheritance tax law, the court recognized the power of the State to “distinguish, select and classify objects of legislation,” by laws which did not violate the settied usages and established practices of our Government. In American Sugar Refining Co. v. Louisiana, 179 U. S. 89, a state enactment, impesing a license tax on the business of refining sugar and molasses was held not
to be a denial of the equal protection of the laws, because of the exemption from such tax of planters and farmers who ground and refined their own sugar and molasses. In W. W. Cargill Co. v. Minnesota, 180 U. S. 452, a statute requiring a license to operate a warehouse for the receipt of grain, located upon the right of way of a railroad, but which did not require a license as to a similar warehouse not located on any right of way, was not a denial of the equal protection of the laws to the first-named class. In Cook v. Marshall Co., 196 U. S. 268, which involved the validity of a cigarette tax law that made a distinction between jobbers and wholesale dealers in cigarettes, the court said: “There is a clear distinction in principle between persons engaged in selling cigarettes generally or at retail, and those engaged in selling by wholesale to customers without the State. They are two entirely distinct occupations. One sells at retail, and the other at wholesale, one to the public generally, and the other to a particular class; one within the State, the other without. From time out of mind it has been the custom of Congress to impose a special license tax upon wholesale dealers different from that imposed upon retail dealers. A like distinction.is observed between brewers and rectifiers, wholesale and retail dealers in leaf tobacco and liquors, manufacturers of tobacco and manufacturers of cigars, as well as peddlers of tobacco. It may be difficult to distinguish these several classes in principle, but the power of Congress to make this discrimination has not, we believe, been questioned.” In Armour Packing Co. v. Lacy, 200 U. S. 226, a state law, imposing a license tax on meat packing houses, did not deny the equal protection of the laws to persons or corporations engaged in such business, because a like tax was not imposed on persons engaged in the business of selling the products of such houses, or on those engaged in packing articles of food other than meat.
In our judgment, the objection that within the true meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, the statute of Texas has the effect to deny to the Oil Company the equal protection