Sunbury American. [volume] (Sunbury, Pa.) 1848-1879, 1873-11-28
suNBuRY, NOVEMBER %, 1873.

versity of opinion in regard 10 the hrst ana
second sections of the articles on Taxation
and Finance in the New Constitution.
The sections arc as follows:
Section /. All taxes shall be uniform
upon the same class of subjects within the
territorial limits Of the authority levying
the tax, aud shall be levied and collected
under general laws; but the General AS
sembly NAV, by general laws, exempt from
taxation public property used Tor public
purposes, actual places ofreligious worship,
places of burial not used or held for private
or corporate profit, and institutions OF
purely public charity.
Sec. 2. All laws exemptng property from
taxation, other than the property above
enumerated, shall be void.
These sections are perhaps not so clearly
expressed as they might be, at least they
are not ST clear as to escape the perversion
Of their meaning by those who oppose the
constitution. But 1t is only by forced
and perverted construction of them that
they can be made to appear TO impose tax
upon real estate for State purposes, or upon
any other property for any purpose. The
power to impose taxes exist in the people,
and unless they conferred that power upon
the Legislature, in the constitution, the
Legislature could not impose a tax or pro-
vide for its collection. In the first section
power has been conferred upon the Lcgis-
lation TO impose taxes, anC, the kind of pro-
perty which it may in its discretion exempt
from taxation is described. The second de-
clares that when taxes are imposed upon
certain class of property no exemptions
shall be allowed except Of that kind of pro-
perty enumerated in section ~.
In other words the constitution declares
that all property shall be liable to taxation,
whenever the Legislature shall deem it
necessary, and that when certain class of
property is so taxed no property of that
class shall escape, except that which is emu
merated in the constitution.
Those who oppose the adoption of the
new constitution, say that it restrains the
Legislature from preventing the imposition
and collection of such tax. If this be
true it is a serious objection, and would
warrant every real estate owner in voting
against it. For ourselves, much as we
realize the necessity for reform in our pre-
sent constitution, rather than impose such
an unnecessary burden upon the people,
we would vote against it and use every in
fuence 10 accomplish its defeat. But n
constitutional provision like statue must
be reasonably construed, and we connot
conceive Of Supreme Court giving such
plain provision as this construction which
would render it absurd and its purpose i'm
possible. The central idea on the subject
of taxation in the mind of the convention
which framed the constitution seems to
have been that of he liability Of all property
to taration; and hence the second section,
which declares all laws eXempting property
from taxation, other than the property al
ready excepted, to be void. If we are cor
rect in expressing the idea Of the conven-
tion, then this section simply means, "All
laws exempting property, belonging to
class that is taxed, from taxation, other
than the property above enumerated, shall
be void.
This act, it is declared, would be render
ed void by the new Constitution. But to
turn against il the opposition of all those
who own real estate and whose taxes would
be increased thereby, if il be true an ade-
quate motive mus. be found for this extra.
ordinary action of the Convention. 1t is
we'll known that nearly all the revenue of
the State is derived from taxes imposed
upon the corporations and corporate pro-
of IN nd hot f,r rl,. nj, ,rht
years the rea! estate of individuals has con-
tributed nothing.
The opponents say that the convention
was in control of corporations, and
that through their influence these Sec
tions were adopted, so sufficient revenue
might be raised from real estate, and the
corporations would then have the Legisla-
ture repeal the acts imposing State taxes
upon them. This is not correct, and they
contradict themselves, by declaring that
the force of the second section is to take
from the Legislature old powers to exempt
property from taxation, except such pro-
perty as it enumcrates. This destroys
their argument. If the Legislature has no
poWci W oAohiPl property ii'Ai 'tN"t'OH'
how do the corporations expect to escape 7
And if the corporations can escape, how
can real estate be kept subject TO taxation
for State purposes.
In the article on Taxation aud Finance,
section 3, we find the following: "The
power to tax corporations and corporate
property shall not be surrendered or sus-
pended by any contract or grant to which
the State Shall be party" This looks as
if the Legislature were prohibited from SUI
rendering the power to tax corporations,
and as if the story about the corporations
getting themselves out of taxation and get
ting the farmers in, was not entitled to much
credit.
Almost every man may find some objec
tion to the new constitution even those