Page:Fletcher v. Oliver.pdf/8

296Rh into existence to supply a want in society, or to afford protection to property and the owner, and to the support of each. The Constitution proclaims the owners shall contribute.

Admitting, for the purpose of elucidation, the meaning contended for by the complainant, and the result is, that the property of a portion of the tax-payers of Pulaski county is exempted from taxation. Tbe inhabitants of Little Rock are none the less inhabitants of Pulaski county.

The complainant states that his property is within the county of Pulaski, and so being, must come under the "uniform rule" by which one inhabitant or tax-payer is required to pay the same rate per cent. on each one dollar's valuation that another is.

Let us further examine the 39th section. Now, mark what it says: "The inhabitants of the city are exempt from working upon any road beyond the limits of the city, and from paying any tax to procure laborers to work on the same."

It is claimed that this section exempts the property of inhabitants within the limits of the city of Little Rock from this tax. Now, let us apply the test. Suppose a non-resident property owner and tax-payer, owning property within the city of Little Rock, had been the complainant, instead of an inhabitant in the present proceeding. With what effect could he plead the 39th section as an exemption? Is there an intelligent lawyer any where that would not reply that this law was only for the benefit of the "inhabitants," and had no application to or benefits to confer on the mere owners of property? It is conceded, then, a non-resident tax-payer, owning property within the city, could not derive any benefits, protection, or exemption from this act.

Is this "taxing by a uniform rule," where the "inhabitant" is relieved from a tax on his property and the non-resident is not? The Legislature never presumed that they were making any such discriminations when they passed the law, nor did they. It is self-evident that the "tax," referred to in the law under consideration, was upon the "inhabitant"—not on property; that the Legislature designed to relieve the inhabitant from.