Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-01-27

u
This was en- agreed case between Greer, as col
leci0e of the taxes OF Davidson county, and AKA
Brown. taxpayer The facts agreed are, tia
Mrs. Brown is "a resident citizen Of Davidson, har
ing her domici at NashTiile; uiat she Is the oWne
OF piannnon in Maury county. near cFFinghin
upon which She has large number Of slaves per
maneutly employed, which are subject 20 taIati0i
by the revenue laws Of the state. She has upon
the place family residence furnished at which shg
frequently spends few days OF weeks, at a tnle
with her family. The assessor Tor Davidson re
quired that she should give m these slaves for taxa
tion IN Davidson county, which she did under pro
test She is also required to pay taxes upon the
same slaves in the county Of Maury- And lhe CUES
ton is uader these facts, whether tie taxes should
be paid IL Maury OF Davidson.
There Is nothing IN sections q 29 of tic "a ar
tice of the Constitution that affects the question, as
is insisted inthe argument Those sections place no
limitations or restrictions upon the power Of the Lee
gslature except hat az property shan be taxed ae-
cordng 10 Us U1Iae, aud shat the same shall be
equal and Uniform throughout the state" The au-
thority given to the Legislature 70 delegate the tax
ing power to the counties and towns in the 29th
section for county and town purposes. Is general
and uncondned except that they shail tax according
70 value.
II may not be anniss to make single remark here
as to e duty of assessors, in view Oh this provision
OF the Constitution, and the act of Assembly I'M
der IT, The remark is suggested by what we see in
thisrecord The Constitution and StItutes, to which
quire that property should be taxed according b
IS cqlue Code 568 565) IN this case from the
description Of the slaves, it is clear that they are
not assessed at much more than half their cash
value. This is great abuse, and ought 10 be re
formed. All property should be assessed at its fair
value, and that can only be determined By the ordi
nary selling and buying prices for cash &C the time
To place it any lower than this standard IS palpa-
bic derelcti0n Of duty on the part Of those whose
duty it is made BY law to value * and it Is difficult
hon tho
Gle their practice in this respeci TO their duty en-
forced by a solemn oath. Code, 800 The fault is
not that Of the taxpayer, but Of the tax assessor as
t not the duty Of the former but the latter to fix
he value Of property
But the question IN this case and it is one Of gen
eral interest. is, 70 the county in which slaves
shall be given in for taxes. This is Of no conse-
quence as 70 the State revenue but is important as
10 me county taxes. We have seen that 1t is en-
-trelv legislative question II must then depend
upon the statute on that subject Il is to be found
In the Code, section j63 subdivision 3: Slaves
shall be assessed % the owner in the county where
he resides, whether in his possession or not, and
JDheler % tts same county or not " hired out in
another they should be assessed 20 the hrer for the
amount of the hire and If the lives in anoth
State then they shall be assessed to the hirer at
the value"
The argument against the propriety and policy Of
this provision rs slaves employed by the owner in
another county permanently, Is conclusive. The
owufr certainly ought TO pay taxes for them in the
county where they are located ard protected But
such Is not the statute. We cannot make legislation
conform to our views of what II should be, where
there is no Ambiguity. Il ought to be changed and
unquestionaby would be- if brought to the notice Of
the Legislature The clause in relation 10 slaves
hired out Of the county Of the owner is entirely an
Ineligible 10 us and ought also, 70 be explained by
the Legislature. But must not now perplex our
selves with an attempt to construe it as this is not
a case of hiring.
Our conclusion is with the Court below upon the
agreed case, that Mrs. Brown IS bound 70 pay the
taxes upon the value Of her slaves employed on her
the county of Davidson, 1t follows. of course. that
she cannot also be required 20 pay for them in the
county of Maury.
50 the Judgment wiz be affirmed CAwUuERs