Opinion. charge of his obligation for the entire season, was indicted under the said statute in the County Court of Gloucester on the 5th day of October, 1893, for failing to make the return which was due from him to the inspector on the week ending September 16, 1893, or within the three days thereafter, of the amount of his sales of oysters. The court sus To the indictment the defendant demurred. tained the demurrer, and gave judgment for the defendant. Upon a petition by the Commonwealth to the judge of the Circuit Court of Gloucester county for a writ of error to the said judgment there was a pro forma refusal, in pursuance of an agreement between the attorney for the Commonwealth and for the defendant, in order that the case might be promptly brought before this court. A writ of error was thereupon granted by one of the judges of this court. By an agreement in writing and filed with the record all errors and objections to the indictment, except as to the validity of the statute upon which it was based, were waived by the counsel for the defendant. The only question, then, for our consideration is the constitutionality of the statute above quoted. It is first assailed on the ground that the tax prescribed is not equal and uniform, and that, therefore, the statute is obnoxious to Section 1, Article X, of the Constitution. In support of this contention quite a number of objections to the act were urged. Section 1, Article X. of the Constitution prescribes that: "Taxation, except as hereinafter provided, whether imposed by the State, county, or corporate bodies, shall be equal and uniform, and all property, both real and personal, shall be taxed in proportion to its value, to be ascertained as prescribed by law. No one species of property from which a tax may be collected shall be taxed higher than any other species of property of equal value." Opinion. An inspection of the statute under consideration shows that the principle of equality and uniformity was strictly observed in the imposition of the tax. The value of the oysters for taxation could not well be ascertained or fixed in a more just manner than is prescribed by the statute. It is to be ascertained by the aggregate amount of sales each week during the oyster season. It is their actual value in market, and not merely their appraised value. A more accurate mode of ascertaining the valuation for taxation of oysters subject to be taxed could not well be devised; and the rate of taxation is precisely the same as is prescribed for other property. The inspector is to collect each week from a tongman, on the aggregate amount of his sales for that week, an amount equal to the amount of tax that may be levied by the State on any other species of property; no more, no less. The tax prescribed is exactly the same as that which is levied by the State on any other species of property, and the valuation is ascertained in the most accurate and just manner. There is no just ground to complain of the tax for ir equality or want of uniformity. It is objected that the valuation for taxation of oysters is not ascertained in the same way, or by the same method, that is prescribed for other property; that the valuation of other property is assessed by officers elected or appointed for the purpose; that the tax on oysters is to be assessed and paid weekly, while all other property is only assessed annually, and the tax paid annually; and that the failure of a tongman to make weekly a return of his sales to the inspector is made a misdemeanor, and subjects him, on conviction, to the payment of a fine, while the owners of other property subject to taxation are not liable to be punished for a like delinquency. Neither one nor all of these objections affect the equality or uniformity of the tax imposed on a tongman, nor offend against Section 1, Article X. of the Constitution. Whether true or Opinion. false, they do not operate to impose any greater burden on him than is borne by the owner of any other species of property of the same value. They do not add one iota to the tax he has to pay, and the statute is therefore in strict accord with both the letter and spirit of the Constitution in the respect complained of. * * The Constitution does not prescribe that the valuation of all property for taxation shall be ascertained in the same way or manner. It is not even implied. In the nature of things, it could not be done. The many kinds or species of property with their diverse characteristics render it impossible. The valuation is to be ascertained as prescribed by law-that is, by the legislature—and in as just a manner as possible; and on such valuation the same rate of tax shall be imposed as on other property, so that "no species of property shall be taxed higher than any other species of property of equal value." The requirement of equality and uniformity is satisfied by such regulations as will secure an equal rate and a just valuation, without reference to the method of valuation, and, in order to be uniform, a tax need not be imposed and assessed upon all property by the same agency or officer. Shenandoah Val. R. Co. v. Supervisors of Clark Co., 78 Va. 269; Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U. S. 337, 338; Central Iowa Ry. Co. v. Board of Sup'rs, 67 Iowa 199; and Louisville & N. A. R. Co. v. State, 25 Ind. 177. The legislature may prescribe any method it may deem best for attaining a just and fair valuation of any species of property, and the court could not declare any such law void, unless it manifestly violated the principles required by the Constitution. The fact that oysters are required to be assessed, and the tax to be paid every week, while other property is only assessed and the tax paid once a year, does not work inequality in the amount of the tax paid. The tongman does not pay weekly on the same property. In the result, he only pays on Opinion. the aggregate amount of his sales during the season the regular pro rata tax that is paid on all other property. The fact that he pays the tax in weekly installments, instead of one annual payment, does not increase the amount of his tax one cent. The amount to be paid to the State is precisely the same, whether paid in one single payment cr in weekly installments. It is claimed that the tax in question, being assessed on the aggregate amount of sales of oysters, is an income tax, and is, therefore, violative of Section 4, Article X. of the Constitution, which exempts incomes under $600 from taxation. It is a sufficient answer to this objection to say, that the tax is assessed on sales, and not upon income, and that the section of the Constitution referred to has no application to the case; and, furthermore, that the tax on the "amount of sales of oysters" taken from their natural beds is expressly authorized by Section 2 of the said article of the Constitution. It is further objected that, because the act subjects a tongman to a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $50, if he fail to make to the inspector the required weekly return of sales, it discriminates against the tongman, as no other owner of property subject to taxation is liable to a fine for a like delinquency. If this were in fact true, it would not be cause to declare the statute void for inequality or want of uniformity in the tax imposed on tongmen of oysters. It in no wise adds to or increases the tax. That remains fixed, and is the same that is "levied by the State on any other species of property." If the tongmen respect the law by which the valuation of oysters for assessment is to be ascertained, they will never incur the fine. A statute that is otherwise valid is not rendered invalid by having a penalty affixed for its violation. wrong of the citizen can never make a valid law void. the claim of discrimination is not founded in fact. Owners of other property are subject to punishment for a like delin The Opinion. quency. The penalty prescribed by the statute in question is for failing to make the return of sales to the inspector, who is to assess the tax. Under the general law, forms for lists of valuations are furnished by the assessor to the owners of personal property, which they are required to fill out by listing their property and affixing valuations thereof, and which, after being verified by oath, are required to be returned to the assessor or clerk of the court within ten days thereafter; and the failure to return the same within the time required, and to make oath to its truth and fairness, subjects the offender to a forfeiture of not less than $30 nor more than $1,000. Code of Va., sections 491, 494, 497. Statutes imposing penalties for failure or refusal to make such returns or to return such lists are quite common, and have been uniformly upheld. Washington v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. Cas. 258; Commonwealth v. Byrne, 20 Gratt. 165; State v. Bell, 1 Phil. (N. C.) 76; Commonwealth v. Cooke, 50 Pa. St. 201; City of Hartford v. Champion, 58 Conn. 268, and 25 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 206. * Nor does the statute infringe in the least on the provision of the Constitution which authorizes a tax to be imposed on "the amount of sales of oysters" taken from the natural beds by any citizen "in any one year * at a rate not exceeding the rate of taxation imposed on any other species. of property." Article X., section 2. It imposes, as has been seen, a tax on the weekly sales of oysters equal to the amount of the tax that may be levied by the State on any other species of property; but provides that "if at the time of registering his boat any tongman shall prefer and elect to pay, and pay to the inspector the sum of two dollars, the inspector shall give him a receipt therefor in which he shall state that the said payment is in discharge of his obligation under this section for the entire season for which his boat is registered, so far as the weekly returns and the amount to be paid thereon VOL. XCI-97 |