French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.

Syllabus

<p>In this case tlie court proceeds on the assumption that the legal import of the phrase “ due process of law” is the same both in the Fifth and in the Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States; and that it cannot be supposed that it was intended by the Fourteenth Amendment to impose on the States, when exercising their powers of taxation, any more rigid or stricter curb than that imposed on .the Federal G-ov-ernment by the Fifth Amendment in a similar exorcise of power.</p> <p>It was not the intention of the Fourteenth Amendment to subvert the systems of the States pertaining to general and special taxation: that Amendment legitimately operates to extend to the citizens and residents of the States, the same protection against arbitrary state legislation, affecting life, liberty and property, as is afforded by the Fifth Amendment against similar legislation by Congress, and the Federal Courts ought not to interfere when what is complained of is the enforcement of the settled laws of the State, applicable to all persons in like' circumstances and conditions, but only when there is some abuse of law, amounting to confiscation of property, or deprivation of personal rights. ■</p> <p>The conclusions reached by this court in many cases cited and summarized by the' court in its opinion are thus stated by two writers, (Cooley and Pillon) whose views this court adopts: “The major part of the cost of a local work is sometimes collected by general tax, while a smaller portion is levied upon the estates specially benefited. The major part is sometimes assessed on estates benefited, while the general public is taxed a smaller portion in consideration of a smaller participation in the benefits. The whole cost in other cases is levied orihands in the immediate vicinity of the work. In a constitutional point of view, either of these methods is admissible, and-one may sometimes be just, and another at other times. In other cases it may be deeihed reasonable to