Tyson v. State

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of this Court. The motion to dismiss the appeal in this case, must be overruled. The 137th sec. of Art. 81, of the Code of Pub. Gen’l Laws, which declares the judgment of the Orphans’ Court to be final and conclusive, applies only to the proportion of the tax which it is the duty of said Court to assess among the parties interested in the estate.

The exceptions of the appellants are not to the apportionment thus made, but to the constitutionality of the law imposing a tax on collateral inheritances, Ac. It is insisted that the law is in ⁵⁸⁶ conflict with the 15th Article of the Declaration of Rights, of the Constitution of 1864, which declares “that the levying of taxes by the poll is grievous and oppressive, and ought to be prohibited; that paupers ought not to be assessed .for the support of the government, but every other person in the State, or person holding property therein, ought to contribute his proportion of public taxes, for the support of government, according to his actual worth in real or personal property; yet fines, duties or taxes may properly and justly be imposed or laid, Avith a political view, • for the good government and benefit of the community.” The act imposing a tax on “ collateral inheritances” Avas passed in the year 1844, and from that time it has been recognized by the Orphans’ Courts in every county in the State, as a valid exercise of legislative poAver. Under it more than a half a million of dollars have been collected and paid into the treasury of'the State; and its constitutionality is now for the first time questioned. Moreover the operation and effect of the laAV Avere before this Court, in the case of The State vs. Dorsey, Ex’r of Worthington, 6 Gill, 388 , in which it A\^as held, that a bequest of freedom to a slave was “ a specific legacy, and liable to the tax imposed by the Act of 1844, ch. 237.

The constitutionality of the laAV, it is true, does not appear to have been raised, but can Ave presume that the consideration of it escaped the attention of the eminent counsel in the cause, or of the Court Avhich was called upon, for the first time, to give a construction to the operation of the laAV. If, hoAveAmr, the question is to be considered as res nova, we have not the slightest doubt as to the constitutionality of the laAV. The 15th Article of the Declaration of Rights did not engraft upon the fundamental laAV, any new principle in regard to taxation. On the contrary, the same provision is to be found in every Constitution adopted in this State, from 1776 to the present time, and in regard to which there has been but one construction in the whole history of our