Arkansas true Democrat., 1859-02-16
Remarks of J. S. Trimble,

Dehuered in the Ssraate on the 29h of Jan.. 1859,
 on the biH to repeal tue minimum tar on Aands,
 and establish the advalOrum principle
 MR. PREsIDENT-Before the vote is taken 1 desire to submit few remarks to the Senate on this important question. There is, perhaps, no subject within the whole scope of our legis- lative duties in which the people feel more deeply interested than that of the taxing pow CT. The constitution of Arkansas emphaticaly declares that, !" all property subject to tarat'on, shall be taxed according to its true value-that value to be ascertained in such manner as the General Assembly shall direct; making the same equal and uniform throughout the State.''
 Again the constitution says, mo one species of property, from which a tax may be collect ed, shall be taxed higher than another species of property of equal vaue.''
 Now ask Senators this question, are all the lands in Arkansas, on which tax is collected of equal ualue2 if not, then this law ought to be repealed. For every man is bound to ad- init, that the rich alluvial lands on the banks of our navigable rivers, are much more valua- ble than the thin barren lands lying at dis tance And when we take into consideration the fact that those who live in the river bot toms with good season and ordiuar" culture cad raise 50 bushels of corn per acre--yet those who reside upon the thin barren lands with the same amount of labor bestowed, can h., d.. al, uh,p ask if it be either legally or morally right, to compel those citizens who per change live upon the thin rocky soil to give in their lands a, the minimum of three dollars per acre, when in truth they may not be worth more than one dollar per acre?
 MT. President, this whole question turns up- on single point; and here make this decla- ration, that if there be any lands in our com monweath, on which tax is collected, that is not really worth three dollars per acre, then hold that our present revenue law is clearly unconstitutional, and ought to be repealed.-- But if the legislature has the right to tax all lands, (without regard to their real value) at not less than three dollars per acre-they have the same right to fix minimum tax on proper ty, and say at once to the tax payer, that al- though sir. your land is really worth no more than $10, yet you shall put it in at $2O and the law compcls you to swear that you have given it in at it's true value. For there would be as much justice in the one case as in the other. But we now pay an advalorum tax on our property, for instance, when the assessor comes round and asks you under oath what your horse is worth, you tell him SlOO, he puts him down at that he then goes to your neighbor and asks him similar questionable has pony, and says that he is worth $50, the sheriff puts him down at fifty. Well this is all right is in strict conformity to the constitution, and is paying on your property an advalorum tax that is according to its real value.
 Not so with your land tax, you cannot put in your land (however poor it may be,) at less price than three dollars per acre, although it may have cost you DO more than 121s cents per acre, and perhaps is still lying unimproved ill the woods. But say Senators, good deal of our best lands are owned by non-resdents and if you repeal the minimum, they having originally entered their lands at S1 % per acre would put them in at that To which I reply that the nonresident would be compelei to give in his land under oath, at its true value the same as the resident, if he did not he would be subject to the same penalties under the law as the resident. But 1 ask if it be right to keep up a policy that will oppress the great mass of our own citizens, in order to reach few non-resdents. We in the north, are both willing and able to pay our taxes, while we do not claim to be rich, still we are not very poor, my constituents are all well to do in the world, they are frugal, temperate moral and industrious, and although we have a heavy po- pulaton on small surface yet all are fuil of happiness. But to the question.
 We wish to change our whole system of tax ation, we desire to place our present revenue law upon high constitutional grounds. The time was when our State was sparsely settled. and needed all the revenue she could get to keep the wheels of government moving; and when our present revenue law was passed in 1s46. it was mere matter of policy. But that day, (like the dews of the morning) has passed away, the same necessity no longer exists, the State treasury is now abundantly supplied with gold and silver, and we may now safely repeal this unjust restriction and place our whole re- venue law upon the rock of the constitution. Therefore with all the lights before and around me, l am for the passage of this bill, and hope it will receive the unanimous support of this honorable body.