—the taxing statute'results in such flagrant and palpable inequality between the burden imposed and the benefit received, as to amount to the arbitrary taking of property without compensation,-- "to spoliation under the guise of exerting the power of taxing."'[Citations.]... "

—yet been devised which will return precisely the same measure of benefit to each taxpayer or class of taxpayers, in proportion to payment made, as will be returned to every other individual or class paying a given tax, it is not within either the disposition or power of this court to revise the necessarily complicated taxing system [] of the State [] for the purpose of attempting …

The court found the yawning discrepancy between the taxes to be owed and the nonexistent benefits to be conferred so “flagrant and palpable” that it was unconscionable

Acts 1916, c. 269, § 2, and upon the excess over two thousand dollars per annum of income derived from professions and business, again with necessary exceptions, id. § 5 (b), both as amended.

A postulate of any system of taxation is that the burden of paying the tax should be borne equally or that the burden should at least be levied in a consistent and rational fashion

Whether or not such discrimination would violate the Equal Protection Clause if the tax statutes were challenged in a proper proceeding

All of the cases which have affirmed the broad powers of taxation have recognized these limitations, ie