Summary

Joseph McKenna Clark v. Titusville — Opinion of the Court

All license laws and all specific taxes have in them an element of inequality; nevertheless they are universally imposed, and their legality
Plaintiff in error, however, contends that the tax in the case at bar is a tax on property, not on the privilege to do business, because the final incidence of the tax is on the merchant, and is paid by him. But every tax has its final incidence on some individual.
Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna Clark v. Titusville — Opinion of the Court

The trial court sustained the ordinance, and its judgment was affirmed by the supreme court upon the opinion delivered by the trial court.
The case was submitted upon a case stated in the nature of a special verdict, from which it appeared that the city was duly incorporated, and passed on June 25, 1888, the ordinance complained of. The provisions of the ordinance were set out, and it was stipulated that if the court should be of the opinion that the ordinance was valid a fine should be entered against the defendant (plaintiff in error) for the total of the taxes prescribed.
Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna Clark v. Titusville — Opinion of the Court

The ordinance imposes a license tax upon persons who carry on certain occupations in the city. Persons in different occupations pay different amounts, and persons in the same occupation are classified by maximum and minimum amount of sales. For instance, persons dealing in merchandise are classified as follows, and we quote from the opinion of the trial court:
Class Business. Tax.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature