204 Urdahl—The Present Fee System in the United States. 
sell in the public markets, for the additional labor of officers and 
expenses thereby imposed. ... If the city may demand 
enough to pay for making out the license, it is difficult to con¬ 
ceive why it may not also demand enough to pay all expenses 
attending supervision of the trade at the place licensed.” In 
Chilvers vs. People 1 the court held that a license is not a tax: 
‘‘It is a price paid for a franchise or public privilege in an in¬ 
dividual. ” 
This idea is brought out very clearly in a whole series of cases 
in which the courts have passed upon the validity of incorpor¬ 
ation charges. In Ashley et al. vs. Ryan , the Supreme Court 
of Ohio held that the sum required by statute for filing articles 
of incorporation, was not a tax on property. “ The filing is 
simply an authority or license to persons filing the articles to 
become a corporation, and the sum paid therefor is the con¬ 
sideration demanded by the state for this right. The same idea 
is presented by Justice Field in Insurance Go. vs. New YorkA 
“ The right or privilege to become a corporation ... is one 
generally deemed of value to corporations ...... The govern¬ 
ment may require that corporations pay a specific sum each 
year.” In Monroe Savings Bank vs. Rochester 3 the court said: 
‘‘It must be regarded as sound doctrine that the state may im¬ 
pose any conditions it please. . . If the grantees expect the 
boon, they must bear the burden. ” In the case of Pearl vs. 
Virginia * 4 Justice Field said: “ A grant of corporate existence is 
the grant of a special privilege to incorporators. ” 
In these and other cases 5 of the same kind the courts have 
apparently grasped the fundamental characteristics of fees; 
namely, that they are payments for special benefits conferred by 
the state or other public body upon individuals. But they have 
not carried it to its logical conclusions by applying it as a cri¬ 
terion to all fees. They have not laid down the general law, 
that fees shall not exceed the value of the special service ren¬ 
dered to the individual. This standard of measurement has 
been applied to only a limited number of fees. 
1 11 Mich., 50. 3 37 N. Y., 365. 
2 134 U. S., 599. 4 8 Wall., 168. 
5 Morgan vs. La., 18 U. S., 455 \ Baker vs. Cincinnati , 11 O., 534; 
Cincinnati Gas Co. vs. State , 18 O., 237. 
