visions in common with others relating to the exercise of this ,664 power are strictly construed, and municipal officials have no right to vary in the least respect from their authority as granted, 665 or use the moneys collected for other and different purposes than those contemplated by law.66 § 407. Specific illustrations of the imposition of license fees. 667 Generally. City of Chicago v. Hardy, 66 Ill. App. 524; Selectmen v. Spalding, 8 La. Ann. 87; Germa nia v. State, 7 Md. 1; City of Nashville v. Althrop, 45 Tenn. (5 Cold.) 554. Without attempting to distinguish except as may be suggested in the notes, the basis for the imposition of a license fee as between the exercise of the police power and the power of taxation, authorities are found sustaining the power of the state or its delegated agencies to impose a license fee upon amusements,67 the professions,668 peddlers or itinerant merchants,669 the carrying 88 N. W. 853; State v. Boyd, 63 Neb. 829, 89 N. W. 417, 58 L. R. A. 108; State v. Duryee, 65 N. J. Law, 449, 47 Atl. 1064; Exempt Firemen's Ass'n v. Exempt Firemen's Benev. Fund, 34 App. Div. 138, 54 N. Y. Supp. 621. Such a law, however, may be special and, therefore, unconstitutional where the passage of special legislation is prohibited. Fox v. Mohawk & H. R. Humane Soc., 165 N. Y. 517, 59 N. E. 353. If the moneys raised are given to a private undertaking the law will be held void. Zeigler v. Com., 59 Pa. 92; Churchill v. Herrick, 32 Wis. 357; Green County v. Village of Monroe, 55 Wis. 175; Town of Plainfield v. Village of Plainfield, 67 Wis. 525. 664 City of Savannah v. Hartridge, 8 Ga. 23; City of Elgin v. Picard, 24 Ill. App. 340; Harris v. Com., 81 Va. 240. 665 Snyder v. City of North Lawrence, 8 Kan. 82; State v. Hatfield, 73 Mo. App. 506. 660 City of New Orleans v. Finnerty, 27 La. Ann. 681; Village of Grosse Pointe v. Wayne County Treasurer, 85 Mich. 44, 48 N. W. 153. Theaters and theatrical exhibitions. Jacko v. State, 22 Ala. 73. A theater license will not protect one who exhibits feats of legerdemain or sleight of hand. Gillman v. State, 55 Ala. 248. The use of a small room for petty dramatic exhibitions is not the keeping of a theater. Charity Hospital v. Stickney, 2 La. Ann. 550; Charity Hospital v. De Bar, 11 La. Ann. 385; City of Boston v. Schaffer, 26 Mass. (9 Pick.) 415. "The levying of an excise has been practiced in regard to other occupations, and the constitutionality of it has never been doubted. There can, therefore, be no objection to it in the present case, admitting theatrical entertainments to be as meritorious as other occupations. But it seems to be peculiarly proper in employments of this kind. They require to be watched. Towns are put to expense in preserving order, and it is proper they should be indemnified constitutional if the classification for inconveniences or injuries occasioned by employments of this nature." Hodges v. City of Nashville, 21 Tenn. (2 Humph.) 61. See, also, Bell v. Mahn, 121 Pa. 225, 1 L. R. A. 364. and tax is equal and uniform on all persons in the same class. Templar v. State Board of Examiners of Barbers, 131 Mich. 254, 90 N. W. 1058; Borough of Belmar v. Barkalow, 67 N. J. Law, 504, 52 Atl. Bowling alleys. Smith v. City of 157; Harmon v. State, 66 Ohio St. Madison, 7 Ind. 86. Exhibitions. Ex parte Felchlin, 96 Cal. 360; State v. Bowers, 14 Ind. 195; Selectmen v. Spalding, 8 La. Ann. 87. The right to require a license fee from a boat on which circus exhibitions are given is held valid in this case. State v. Schonhausen, 37 La. Ann. 42; Com. v. Gee, 60 Mass. (6 Cush.) 174. The statute does not apply to the teaching of dancing. City of New York v. Eden Musee American Co., 102 N. Y. 593. Dramatic entertainments. Society for Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents v. Diers, 10 Abb. Pr. (N. S.; N. Y.) 216. Billiard and pool rooms. Washington v. State, 13 Ark. 752; Hill v. State, 120 Ala. 392, 24 So. 929; Ex parte Bernert, 62 Cal. 524; City of Burlington v. Lawrence, 42 Iowa, 681; City of New Orleans v. Turpin, 13 La. Ann. 56; Metz v. Com., 59 Ky. (2 Metc.) 14; Merriam v. City of New Orleans, 14 La. Ann. 318; Hinckley v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 140 Mass. 38; Com. v. McCarty, 141 Mass. 420; State v. Pate, 67 Mo. 488; State v. Hatfield, 73 Mo. App. 506; Sears v. West, 5 N. C. (1 Murph.) 291; Morgan v. State, 64 Neb. 369, 90 N. W. 108; Wright v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 200, 53 S. W. 640; Village of Winooski v. Gokey, 49 Vt. 282. 668 Browne v. Selser, 106 La. 691. An act imposing a license tax on trades and professions is not un 249, 64 N. E. 117; Ex parte Northrup, 41 Or. 489, 69 Pac. 445. Architects. City of St. Louis v. Herthel, 88 Mo. 128; Cardiff V. Board of Architects, 69 N. J. Law, 172, 54 Atl. 294; Wilson v. City Council of Greenville, 65 S. C. 426, 43 S. E. 966; Burke v. City of Memphis, 94 Tenn. 692. Lawyers. Goldthwaite V. City Council of Montgomery, 50 Ala. 486; Ex parte Montgomery City Council, 64 Ala. 463. City of Sonora v. Curtin, 137 Cal. 583. Not given right to extort taxes. Young v. Thomas, 17 Fla. 169; City of Rome v. McWilliams, 52 Ga. 251; City of Savannah v. Hines, 53 Ga. 616; Wright v. City of Atlanta, 54 Ga. 645; Garden City v. Abbott, 34 Kan. 283; City of St. Louis v. Sternberg, 4 Mo. App. 453; State v. Forcier, 65 N. H. 42; Holland v. Isler, 77 N. C. 1; City of Wilmington v. Max, 86 N. C. 88; Languille v. State, 4 Tex. App. 312; Ould v. City of Richmond, 23 Grat. (Va.) 464, 14 Am. Rep. 139; City of Petersburg v. Cocke, 94 Va. 244, 26 S. E. 576, 36 L. R. A. 432; Blanchard v. City of Bristol, 100 Va. 469; Fleetwood v. Read, 21 Wash. 547, 47 L. R. A. 205; Blanchard v. City of Bristol, 100 Va. 469, 41 S. E. 948. Physicians. Watkins Medical Co. v. Paul, 87 Ill. App. 278; White v. Lapeer Ct. Judge, 133 Mich. 93, 94 N. W. 601; City of Girard v. Bissell, 45 Kan. 66, 25 Pac. 232; Holland v. Isler, 77 N. C. 1; State v. Powell, 69 N. H. 353; Parks v. State, 159 Ind. 211, 64 N. E. 862, 59 L. R. A. 190; City of Cherokee v. Perkins, 118 Iowa, 405, 92 N. W. 68; Volp v. Saylor, 42 Or. 546, 71 Pac. 980. Magnetic healers and faith healers. Steiner v. Liggett, 67 Kan. 822, 72 Pac. 577. 669 Howe Mach. Co. v. Gage, 100 U. S. 676; Ex parte Hanson, 28 Fed. 127. In re Wilson, 19 D. C. (8 Mackey) 341, 12 L. R. A. 624. The salaried agent of the manufacturers selling "Soapine" held a peddler. Seymour v. State, 51 Ala. 52; Ex parte Heylman, 92 Cal. 492; Merriam v. Langdon, 10 Conn. 461. State v. Conlon, 65 Conn. 478, 31 L. R. A. 55. An act which in effect is a trade regulation of harmless business and which grants to public officials within their discretion the power to issue a license or refrain from so doing is unconstitutional as violating "Bill of Right," section one, which declares that all men are equal in rights and that no man or class of men are entitled to exclusive privileges from the community. Hall v. State, 39 Fla. 637, 23 So. 119; Duncan v. State, 105 Ga. 457, 30 S. E. 755; Holliman v. City of Hawkinsville, 109 Ga. 107. Under the act exempting disabled Confederate soldiers residents of the state from paying the usual peddler's license fee, it is not necessary that the disability was brought about by service in the army. See, also, as construing the same statute, Hartfield v. City of Columbus, 109 Ga. 112, 34 S. E. 288. City of Peoria v. Gugenheim, 61 Ill. App. 374. A license fee of $200 per month for transient or itinerate merchants is unreasonable and extortionate and, therefore, illegal. McDermott v. City of Lewistown, 92 Ill. App. 474; McRoberts v. City of Sullivan, 67 Ill. App. 435. A license fee which is unreasonable in amount and which discriminates in authority or against any business that is lawful in itself or in its methods is illegal. City of South Bend v. Martin, 142 Ind. 31, 29 L. R. A. 531; City of Mt. Pleasant v. Clutch, 6 Iowa, 546; Iowa City v. Newell, 115 Iowa, 55, 87 N. W. 739. The reasonableness of such an ordinance is for the court to determine, and the presumption in the absence of competent evidence to the contrary is that the license charged is reasonable. State Center v. Barenstein, 66 Iowa, 249. An ordinance which provides that the mayor in his discretion can require peddlers to pay license "not less than one nor more than $25" is void as to uncertainty and unreasonableness. City of Ottumwa v. Zekind, 95 Iowa, 622, 29 L. R. A. 734. The court in this case held that an ordinance requiring transient merchants to pay a license was not open to the objection of a want of uniformity in its operation or that it was class legislation, but where the amount of the license fee was fixed at $250 a month or $25 per day, the ordinance was held void as unreasonable. City of Cherokee v. Fox, 34 Kan. 16; City of Carlisle v. Hechinger, 20 Ky. L. R. 74, 45 S. W. 358; Standard Oil Co. v. Co., 21 Ky. L. R. 1339, 55 S. W. 8. The state may require proof of the good moral character of an applicant for a peddler's license and also a description entered of record of the person. Bohon's Assignee v. Brown, 20 Ky. L. R. 1496, 49 S. W. 450; Kirkpatrick v. Davis Clock Co., 49 La. Ann. 871; Jones v. Foster, 43 App. Div. 33, 59 N. Y. Supp. 738; State v. Morrell, 100 N. C. 506, 6 S. E. 418; State v. Franks, 127 N. C. 510, 37 S. E. 70; Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Carver, 118 N. C. 328; Com. v. Gardner, 133 Pa. 419, 19 Atl. 550; Hart v. Willetts, 62 Pa. 15; Com. v. Brinton, 132 Pa. 69. Andrews v. White, 32 Me. 388; Bur- ter, 54 Hun, 140, 7 N. Y. Supp. 237; bank v. McDuffee, 65 Me. 135; State v. Montgomery, 92 Me. 433. A statute is not void for discrimination which exempts, from the payment of a license fee for peddling, disabled soldiers or soldiers in the war of the Rebellion, but it is unconstitutional as contrary to the 14th amendment of the United States when it discriminated between citiens and aliens. See State v. Montgomery, 94 Me. 192. Com. v. Ober, 66 Mass. (12 Cush.) 493; Com. v. Crowell, 156 Mass. 215, 30 N. E. 1015; Com. v. Ellis, 158 Mass. 555, 33 N. E. 651; Com. v. Cusick, 120 Mass. 183; Com. v. Newhall, 164 Mass. 338; City of Saginaw v. McKnight, 106 Mich. 32, 63 N. W. 985. An ordinance imposing a license fee on nonresidents only is in valid. People v. Sawyer, 106 Mich. 428, 64 N. W. 333; People v. Baker, 115 Mich. 199, 73 N. W. 115; People v. Hotchkiss, 118 Mich. 59, 76 N. W. 142. Brooks v. Mangan, 86 Mich. 576. The regulations of the Bay City charter in respect to license fees for hawkers and peddlers held so unreasonable and prohibitory as to render them invalid, and that which exempts city residents from the operation of an ordinance imposing a license upon such occupations is illegal as an unjust discrimination against nonresidents. People v. Sawyer, 106 Mich. 428; City of St. Paul v. Briggs, 85 Minn. 290, 88 N. W. 984; State v. Downing, 22 Mo. App. 504; State v. Snoddy, 128 Mo. 523, 31 S. W. 36; State v. Holmes, 62 Mo. App. 178; State v. Smithson, 106 Mo. 149; Temple v. Sumner, 51 Miss. 13; Gerrard v. State, 64 Neb. 368, 89 N. W. 1062; Bradley v. City of Roches Com. v. Harmel, 166 Pa. 89, 27 L. R. A. 388. A requirement is valid that one applying for a peddler's license shall make proof of their good moral character. State v. Foster, 21 R. I. 251, 46 Atl. 833; State v. Wilson, 70 Tenn. (2 Lea) 28; Woolman v. State, 32 Tenn. (2 Swan) 353; In re Butin, 28 Tex. App. 304; Saulsbury v. State (Tex. Civ. App.) 63 S. W. 568; Spanish Fork City v. Mortensen, 7 Utah, 33; State v. Hodgdon, 41 Vt. 139; State v. Harrington, 68 Vt. 622, 34 L. R. A. 100. That an act requiring a license from "itinerant vendors" is oppressive does not necessarily make it unconstitutional. Morrill v. State, 38 Wis. 428. In the following cases the individuals in question were not regarded as peddlers. The cases almost without exception hold that one on salary or commission soliciting the purchase of goods and selling by sample, the goods to be subsequently delivered, is not a peddler within the ordinary meaning of that word as used in statutes, ordinances or constitutions granting the power to license hawkers and peddlers. The cases below cited sustain this proposition and also make the other distinctions noted. In re Spain, 47 Fed. 208, 14 L. R. A. 97; In re Flinn, 57 Fed. 496; Randolph v. Yellowstone Kit, 83 Ala. 471, 3 So. 706; Keller v. State, 123 Ala. 94, 26 So. 323. To constitute a peddler, it is sufficient that the person be engaged in the business for their livelihood or profit. Kennedy v. People, 9 Colo. App. 490, 49 Pac. 373. A peddler is defined as "a trader who carries with him the goods which he sells." State v. Kumpel (Del.) 43 Atl. 173; Gould v. City of Atlanta, 55 Ga. 678; Kimmel v. City of Americus, 105 Ga. 694; Ezell v. Thrasher, 76 Ga. 817; Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Johnson, 84 Ga. 754, 8 L. R. A. 273. One selling goods by sample is not a peddler. Bohannon v. Wrought Iron Range Co., 111 Ga. 860. A corporation cannot be regarded as a peddler. City of Elgin v. Picard, 24 Ill. App. 340. One soliciting subscriptions for books for future delivery is not a peddler. Rawlings v. Village of Cerro Gordo, 32 Ill. App. 215; Delisle v. City of Danville, 36 Ill. App. 659; Twining v. City of Elgin, 38 Ill. App. 356; City of Olney v. Todd, 47 Ill. App. 439; Wiggins v. City of Chicago, 68 Ill. 372; City of Waterloo v. Heely, 81 Ill. App. 310; Naegle v. City of Centralia, 81 Ill. App. 334; City of Carrollton v. Bazzette, 159 Ill. 284, 31 L. R. A. 522; City of Huntington v. Cheesbro, 57 Ind. 74. City of Davenport v. Rice, 75 Iowa, 74, 39 N. W. 191. One soliciting orders for goods is not a peddler within the meaning of an ordinance requiring a license for hawking and peddling goods. City of Stuart v. Cunningham, 88 Iowa, 191, 55 N. W. 311, 20 L. R. A. 430; City of Davenport v. Rice, 75 Iowa, 74; Snyder v. Closson, 84 Iowa, 184; State v. Gouss, 85 Iowa, 21; City of Stuart v. Cunningham, 88 Iowa, 191, 20 L. R. A. 430; Kansas City v. Collins, 34 Kan. 434; Com. v. Jones, 70 Ky. (7 Bush) 502. Roy v. Schuff, 51 Ky. L. R. 86, 24 So. 788. The definition of a peddler will not include a farmer retailing his own crop in a small wagon. Standard Oil Co. v. Com., 21 Ky. L. R. 1339, 55 S. W. 8; Coffey v. Hendrick, 23 Ky. L. R. 1328, 65 S. W. 127; Pegues v. Ray, 50 La. Ann. 574, 23 So. 904; Com. v. Ober, 66 Mass. (12 Cush.) 493; Com. v. Farnum, 114 Mass. 269; Com. v. Reid, 175 Mass. 325; People v. Baker, 115 Mich. 199; Town of Trenton v. Clayton, 50 Mo. App. 535; State of Hoffman, 50 Mo. App. 585; City of Moberly v. Hoover, 93 Mo. App. 663, 67 S. W. 721; State v. Powell, 69 N. H. 353, 41 Atl. 171; State v. Wells, 69 N. H. 424, 45 Atl. 143, 48 L. R. A. 99; State v. Angelo, 71 N. H. 224, 51 Atl. 905; Hewson v. Inhabitants of Englewood, 55 N. J. Law, 522, 21 L. R. A. 736, 27 Atl. 904; Driscoll v. City of Salem, 67 N. J. Law, 113, 50 Atl. 475; People v. Jarvis, 19 App. Div. 466, 46 N. Y. Supp. 596; Village of Stamford v. Fisher, 140 N. Y. 187. City of Greensboro v. Williams, 124 N. C. 167, 32 S. E. 492. One who sells articles without traveling or who delivers goods already solicted, merely collecting the price, is not a peddler or itinerant merchant. State v. Lee, 113 N. C. 681; Burgunder v. Weil, 60 Ohio St. 234; Com. v. Eichenberg, 140 Pa. 158; State v. Belcher, 1 McMul. (S. C.) 40. The selling of a single shipment of goods at auction is not hawking and peddling within the meaning of the South Carolina act of 1835. State v. Moorehead, 42 S. C. 211, 20 S. E. 544, 26 L. R. A. 585; State v. Ninestein, 132 N. C. 1039, 43 S. E. 936; Alexander V. Greenville County, 49 S. C. 527, 27 S. E. 469; State v. Coop, 52 S. C. 508, 41 L. R. A. 501; State v. Bevins, 70 Vt. 574; |