Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1862-03-26
Tax Decision Of the Supreme Court


committee in the meantime to provide
such a system Of taxation as aiil meet the
very astidious views of the Supreme
Court-I meaa Judges Paine end Dixon
| shall myself oppose any new enactments
Iretfospecting ami retaxing anybody or cor
pofation for six years back in order opro-
lduce fancied security, because some fu-
ture court may decide this aea0 procedure
to be nnconstitt ional. Judge Paine hes
found such a case ia California, 1t might
satisfy hisecruples, but would it satisfy all
subsequent Judges who might be as peril
pacious in carrying their opinions as Judge
Paine is! | have no doubt that the tax
law Of 1854 on rail roads was constitution
ii. The Supreme Court, composed Of
Wilton, Smith and Cole, so decided, after
solemn argument. That they did SO decide
Justice Paine fully admits ii bis recent de
cision. Suppose Justices Paine and Dixon
should leave the bench, ana judges disa-
lgreeing with them in opinion should take
their places, they would decide that all adj
ditional taxes for cqualizing past deticicn-
cies we may now levy on rail roads would
be unconstitutional, all sales Of real and
personal property id the course Of the col
lection Of such tax would be void in the
view Of such judges. We cannot enter on
such doubtful measure to accommodate
the ideas Of those gentlemen unless they
guarantee the Legislature that no subse-
| quent court will alter their opinions. They
have according to their own confession
overthrow the Judgment of their prede-
cessors; they have indicated to the Legis-
lature that they would sustain bill I'M
posing new taxes ON rail roads to supply
the omissions Of the past. Suppose we do
so, are we sure that they will have no sue
cessors who will disagree with them on the
constitutionality Of this measure? Judge
Cole is compelled to dissent from this opin-
ion because he believes the rail roads were
legally taxed under the law Of 1854. He
would say, they have pad their taxes; all
additional bunhens, in bis mind, would be
unconstitutional. These additional taxes
could not be assessed in one year; they
would necessarily be divided and appear in
the tax rolls Of several consecutive years;
aud all our taxes for these years would be
unconstitutional if ever a majority Of the
court should coincide with Judge Colo
So we gain nothing by correcting or at
tempting to correct taxation in accordance
with the views Of the present majority Of
the court, as the probability is hat these
views may be orerrulei. The court has
not in terms decided against the license
system in reference to rail roads. 1t IS
true that the ground upon which the IL
cense system rests is liable to the same Or
lection as is urged against the law Of 1854.
The rail road property does not appear in
the tax rolls, and the court decided that it
should 50 appear in order to produce
equality. Here Is The great mistake Of
the majority Of the court. The constitu
ton requires that the ru}e of taxation shall
be uniform. The node By which this uni-
formity should be produced is not fixed by
the constitution. The object undoubtedly
was to produce equality Of taxation, as
near as might be, according to value, The
Legislature is not prohibited from assessing
property directly, or ascertainine the rela-
tive burthen which ought to BE paid by
rail roads, banks or telegraph companies
from their income, which IS the index, and
the only index, Of the value of such prop.
erty The mode, therefore, by which the
uniform rule should be obtained, does not
require that all property should appear in
the assessment roll. The stock of a rail
road company has been and must be ex-
Guided from the assess nent roll under aDv
system that implies taxes on the road itself.
The majority OF the court have established
a rule which destroys the very end which
they would attain. 70 tax rail road prop
erty lying in a county implies that frae-
ment Of rail road may 90 into other
hands than the company on Il tax sale.--
The ownership of a mile Of rail road sep
rated from its. connection would be of no
value. The rail road Is an entire thing, rs
much as a horse Of a house We might
as well assess horse by computing the
value Of his head and body Separately
Some States assess railroads thus; but the
absurdity and Inconvenience Of it as the
nature Of such property becomes better
understood is resulting in its general aban-
donment Hotels, buildings. shops and
warehouses belonging to rail roads ought to
be taxed as other property. The judges
assume to champion the cause Of the poor
against the rich. The former must now
pay the full share Of their error. They
have made a pettllogging appeal. But
kneeland, who refused to pay bis taxes,
was a mans Of wealth. They have decided
he was net compelled to pay, The rule
adopted BY the Legislature would allow il
to tax rail roads as much as If they were
on the tax roll The Legislature have
more means for ascertaining the value Of
rail roads than any assessor. As it IS, the
only respHrce LEFT ~ Is, probably, conyen-
ton. CHS i paying dear for a court thas
refuses to look at conses, eeacss.
The majority OF the court seems panic
Stricken for fear somebody wild be taxed
l- ~ tne Legislature more than d hers. Yet
this majority has decided that the Lagis-
lature may exempt any amount Of proper
~ from taxation if it exempts all property
Of the same class, and not specific piece
lof real estate. 1t may exempt church
I