15. As already has been stated, the Bill contains no authorization
for the assessment of trailers; therefore the tax contemplated by
the Bill, while it might vary according to the size of a particular
house trailer, bears no direct relationship to value. Here, again, the
English case is instructive, for the Court of Appeals there stated
(at page 530) that "where the tax is the same upon a $600 trailer
and upon a $2,500 trailer, there is, of course, no uniformity." Thus,
the constitutional requisite of uniformity here, as in the English
case, is absent.
The preceeding discussion has been set forth in full recognition
of the presumption of the constitutionality with which the Courts of
this State have wisely cloaked the Acts of the General Assembly.
This cloak, however, is not sufficient to shield this Bill from the
thrust of Article 15.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that
House Bill No. 1075 fails to meet the requirements of Article 15 of
the Declaration of Rights and, consequently, is unconstitutional.
(s) Thomas B. Finan,