Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1856-01-18

uSi ~ n 'ii9 i9Af'11i sitfu liIAtA1 pISOjS
often succeed in pushing their own proper
burdens upon others. Frequently, too. the
Legislature uses the taxing power for favor
ing or discouraging special interests and OBJ
ijects. This was 50 long and so generally
aequiesced in that the idea became preya-
lent that taxes are levied, not so much for
! purposes of revenue, as for those of favorit-
ism or oppression. Hence, we find persons
denouneing taxes, although imposed BY gen
eral laws, as being aimed at the destruction
of their particular class; hence, it likewise
/ is, that we find them demanding exemp-
tions for certain special objects, because, in
their opinion, they deserve to succeed. n !,
These appeals to the favor ofour Legisla-
| lures have in many instances been success
ful. The valuation of improved lands in a
state of nature, which was the rule previous
to 1876, was intended as favor to the ag-
ricultural interest. The exemption of tools
and machinery was designed as an encour-
agement to the mechanics and manufacture
ers of the State. Taxing banks on their
profits only was held out as bonus for for
eign capital; while the exemption of prop
erty appropriated to educational and char
liable purposes, was intended as an approx
al of those objects. Under this policy the
duplicate decreased until it embraced only
about one-fourth of the actual wealth ofthe
State. Attempting to favor every deserv-
ing object in society multiplied the pleas for
further exemptions, and there was danger
that the true idea of taxation would be en-
tirely lost. As natural consequence, va
rious special taxes were imposed, which,
however, produced but little revenue. q.r.
In 1916 change of our financial system
occurred. Annual deficits compelled the
Legislature TO return to what should be the
primary objects of all tax laws, to wit: the
t eellaetian of rarenua PrevinnS errnrs were
then in part remedied, but many very fla
grant ones were continued from ill-advised
partiality. A new tendency was, however,
inaugurated; and the rule of equality in
taxation gained constant strength, in spite
of opposing interests. The Constitutional
Convention met under these auspices, and
the tax rule established in the Constitution
was the result. Its great principle is the
abrogation of all arbitrary taxation. Man,
as snch, his business, occupation, and pro-
fession, are no longer subject to legislative
caprice. Property is the measure and basis
oftaxation. A few exemptions for objects
of almost universal interest are authorized,
but in such manner that they can never
become independent of the popular will.
The first General Assembly under the
new Constitution passed such tax laws as
were supposed to be in accordance with its
requirements. Differences of construction
arose, as was to be expected, and were very
properly referred to the Court, whose decis-
ion has been acquiesced in by the great
body of the people.
1t is not denied that the rule referred to
has produced occasionally some hardships,
but IS equally true that these hardships
would be scarcely observable, if, instead Of
supporting exemptions and deductions, we
would make the grand duplicate represent
the entire wealth of the State. tt esti-
mated that no less than three hundred mill
ions of property in the State escaped taxa
ton.
A careful examination of the question
will suggest many reasons adverse to any
precipitate or unadvised changes in our tax
laws. All agree that property shall be tax
ed where it is by uniform rule, that the
resident and nonresident owner shall pay
his duo proportion, and that this proportion
shall include State, county, township and
city taxes The tax is on the property
| ,,;tl,;r +bo S4oto opJ ,,oF ~, - ob;+op+.
The lien for the tax is not upon the owner,
but on the property; it makes no difference
whether the property is owned by residents
or rnon-residentS. Possession not ownership,
is the point of inquiry. A New York mer-
chant doing business in our State will not
be asked whether his capital is his own OF
borrowed. The whole stock found in his
possession is the measure of his taxation
Our own merchants are treated precisely in
the same way. A different rule would OBJ
viously work serious injustice to Ohio mer-
chants, because, with deductions for credits,
foreign merchants might trade in our State
without paying one dollar of taxes Again,
Virginians own lands in Ohio. They owe
a portion of the purchase money either in
one or the other of these States. Shall the
township or city in which the land lies lose
the right to levy fair proportion of taxes
upon the lands in question? The rule for
deduction for debts would inevitably work
endless confusion. Take the case of one Of
our own citizens, many of whom own both
real and personal property in more than one
locality, and are indebted for a part of the
same where shall the deduction be made
Shall it be at their own optiona
The doctrine so frequently advanced that
''man should be taxed only on what he has
and not upon what he has not" docs not in
fact apply to our system of taxation. Our
duplicate lists the visible property in the
State, and not the persons. A large num-
Der of the inhabitants of the State are not
upon ii, while it contains the names of ma
ny who reside beyond its limits. This is a
sufficient answer to such ayowals.
Simplicity, both of detail and principle,
is an important element in the construction
of all revenue laws. Evasions multiply
with exemptions and deductions, and the in
dividual taxpayer will be apt, through ment-
al reservation, to enlarge the sphere for
which the legislator has set him the exam
pie. He, too, has favorite objects which ne
thinks it hard to tax. The more generally
we adopt the principle of taxing equally all
II Il q .