Weekly Calaveras chronicle. (Mokelumne Hill, Calaveras County, Cal.) 18??-1874, 1868-01-11
An Important Decision.

Supreme Court of this State, which for the
magnitude and importance of the questions
| involved, and the effect which the decision
will have upon the interests of the Stste at
large. is tnequaled in the history OF judicial
proceedings in California. The Court, IN a
test case, People VS.. McCreery, has declared
that portion of the revenue law of this State,
passed April I'd. 1866, which exempts certain
species of property from taxation, to be I'M
constitutional. Under the provisions of the
Legislative Act in question, large amount
of public property has heretofore been ex-
empt from assessment and taxation. Build
ings and lots belonging to charitable and
benevolent societies; public hospitals; all
property belonging to county, municipal
corporation, city. town, village or school
district, devoted to public use. education.
health. ornament, etc.; public libraries !;
churches; mining claims upon the public
lands, etc., etc., have escaped taxation by
provisions of the revenue laws passed from
time to time by the Legislature of this State.
w HCluGI tuc cASuptiOh Va tlc NoSS ouAoNhs
of property included in the prov ;sions of the
revenue law referred to, was just and proper,
is question upon which We apprehend there
will not be wide diversity of opinion. So
far the press unanimously favors the decision
of the Court that the Legislature transcribed
their prerogativcs by exempting any prop
erty from taxation. The case in which the
decision was rendered, came before the Court
in the following manner: Mr.. McCreery, a
wealthy citizen of San Francisco, was assess
ed for a mortgage of 1925, 900 upon the Lick
House. In order to definitely settle the
question whether any species of property
was legally exempt from taxation, he refused
to pay the State portion of the tax on his
mortgage, .O5 per cent. The case was tried
in the District Court, and Mr.. McCreery
was beaten. He then appealed to the Su-
preme Court, which reversed the judgment
of the Court below. Mr.. McCreery's counsel
took the ground from the beginning that the
Legislature had acted in defiance of the fol-
lowing section of the State Constitution
Taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout
the State. AL property in this State shall be taxed
in proportion to its value, etc.
This section of the Constitution, together
with the discrepancy between it and the ex-
empting clauses of the revenue law, are dis
cussed at length and very ably argued by the
Court. The decision is too lengthy to admit
of its publication in our columns, but its
temper and the line of argument adopted
will be readily understood by a perusal of
the following extract:
The exemption [of certain property from taxa
tion far it includes private property is in plain
violation of the command of the constitution. The
exemption being void, it must be stricken from the
Act, and the Act read if that portion had rot
been inserted. The Act of April I'd, 1866 when the
illegal provision is expurgated, prescrbes that
ads raorem tax of one dollar five cents, etc.. is
hereby levied and directed to be collected and paid
for State purposes upon the assessed value of all
property in this State 1t is therefore the duty of
the Assessors, under the to all property in
their respective districts, counties, &c. subject to
taxation. This comprehends all property except
that which may be denominated, generally, 'pu6Iic
property"
The decision of the Court is comprehensive
and sweeping, and as an Act has already
been introduced repeating the exempting
clauses of the revenue law, it is probably
final. We heartily coincide with the opinion
of the Court in every particular. Whether
the action of the Legislature was uncon-
stitutional, or not, we regard the distinctions
made in reference to the taxation of property,
as invidious. unjust and unfair. Taxation
to derive revenue for the support of govern
ment in which all are directly interested, is
burden which, of all others, should be as
equally borne as possible; and it undoubt-
| eddy was the intention of the trainers of our
| fundamental law, that the section which ex-
pressly provides that "Taxation shall be
equal" and that "all property in this State
shall be taxed in proportion to its value. y
should be literally construed. The Supreme
Court has certainly taken this view of the
matter, and we believe that its findings and
decision will meet with the unqualified ap-
probation of all those who do rot wish to
avoid the assumption of their just proportion
of the burden imposed by taxation. We
can conceive of no valid reason why the
property of corporations, societies and the
different religious creeds, should not be
| taxed. Simply because piece of property
belongs to an order or society formed for the
sole purpose of mutually benefting its men,
bers, is not, in our opinion, shadow of rea-
son for its exemption; neither do we be-
lieve that costly edit ces, erected for the
ostensible purpose of worshipping God
should be treated differently FROM othsl
buildings of equal value. Levying AZ assess.
ment upon church is not tantamount to 9
taxation of the religious belief of those who
worship IN it according to the discip line Of
their creed. The taxation of churches would
in nowise interfere with the doctrines Of
their communicates, but simply compel them
to bear their just proportion of the burden Of
supporting the Government which protects
them in the full enjoyment of their religious
beliefs. Their exemption, however. as o
natural sequence, increases the taxation oil
"outsiders'' in pro rata to the value of the
property exempted. Congregations should
not erect churches upon which they are I'M
able to pay taxes. The non-taxation of any
species Of property is an inducement which
| will certainly tend towards its rapid increase,
and eventually result in the building up oil
| monied power which will endanger our free
institutions. The decision of the Supreme
Court is an insurmountable obstacle to its
further progress.
The idea which our contemporaries enter
tain, that the judgment of the Court affects
the status of mining claims, is, in our opin-
ion, an erroneous one. The mineral lands
of California are the property of the General
Government, and their taxation is a matter
entirely beyond the control of State Legisla-
ton. The Act of Congress admitting us
into the Union, expressly forbids the taxing
of the public lands. Section Sd of that
document reads as follows:
4fnd Be 1t further Enacted. That the said State
of California is admitted into the Union upon the
express condition that the people of said State,
through their legislature otherwise, shall never
lands within its limits, and shall pass and do
no act whereby the title of the United States to,