Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-06-18


for at least 20 years. The tax payer is only
required to swear that he has given In sill
his property and at fair valuation. The oath
will not hurt man who is willing, honest
", to list all bis property. A man who is
not willing so to list his property has no
right to object to the oath. He ought to be
sworn. -
The second objection is that the schedule
requires the tax payer to give in all his
property, even to the sqast plow,r the sslast
hoe" etc., and the "picture OF his departed
friend" etc. The law is not to blame
about this. It says not one word about
agricultural implements, pictures, etc. If
there be blame it is the fault of he blank.
Section %, Article 2, Of the Constitution
says: "All property, real, personal, or mix
ed, shall be taxed" It then exempts GER
tain property, used for public purposes, and
one thousand dollars worth OF personal
property. Section of the assessment law
provides, In substantially the same langu-
age, that Gail property, real, personal, and
mixed, shall be assessed, etc. Section Of
the law exempts substantially the same
property as does the Constitution. II there
is anythirg wrong here it is the Constitu-
ten, aud not the law, for the law must con
hOAAu W OAC SODobtbAUCus ub WOfuS3
property, real, personal, and mixed" used
in the Constitution woald include not only
the ''last hoe," and the slast plow," but
would include wearing apparel, and every
thing else 10 the shape Of property, down
to paper collar or q shoe string. 900 +
Another reason why everything should
be assessed is that under the Constitution
there is one thousand dollars worth of per-
sonal property exempt from taxation. A
large majority of persons have not $1,000
worth OF personal property, all told.
Yet, when the property Of sll persons
having less than ST 900 is added together,
it makes more than half the personal prop
erty of the State. In this way more than
half the personal property of the State es-
capes taxation.
Now it is clear that the Legislature has
no power TO exempt from taxation any
thing except what Is exempted by the Con-
stitution. Bet suppose the assessor could
omiG from the assessment the farmers i'm
plements, the blscksmith's tools and every
body's household and kitchen furniture,
and so On, the assessor would scarcely find
any person with any taxable personality,
and the whole burden woolt fall upon the
land, just where it is now drifting. 1t is
clear that the assessment must begin some
where, and the only proper and uniform
way i'll which it could be done is to assess
everything and deduct from the whole the
$1,000 exempt. This is precisely what the
Constitu' ion does, and the law only re-en
acts the Constitution.
The third objection Is that the law re-
quires the tax payer to value his own prop
erty! Now, if the law required him to
submit to the valuation of any other per-
son, could see ground for objection; but
for tax payer to object to the law because
it makes him his own judge between him
self and the State, is simply absurd. 1t is
the first time in all history that any man
or people has objected to himself as Judge
in his own case when the other side sub
mitted it to him. In all candor, il the
owner Of the property does not know its
value, who does? Does not the man who
buys, pays for, cultivates and lives upon
land knows its value mucn better than any
one else could know it? This objection is
'toO thin"
Another objection to the law is that
when property is sold and notes taken for
l. the law taxes the property in the hands
Of the purchaser and then the notes in the
hands of the seller. This has been the law
since the Acts of I869-7O, if not longer.
(See Acts 1S69-70, chap. Is, sec. IL 1t
necessarily results from the language of
the new Constitution, sec. %, art. 2.
Land is "real property" whether
it is paid for or not. Notes
are Epersonal property" whether given for
land or anything else. The Constitution
says all property, real, personal and mixed
shall be taxed. OF course this includes
both the land and the note. But these OBJ
jectors say that note is not property. Il
is merely the representative OF property, q
"promise to pay" The United States legal
tender note is only promise to pay"-the
mere representative Of money the
government promises to pay yet no one
insists that it should not be taxed. There
are many notes worth as much as green
backs, especially when they bear 10 per
cent interest.
But these directors do not agree among
themselves. Purchasers who have notes
out say the land ought not to be taxed, be-
cause they have no real title till the notes are
paid. The holder of the notes SAYS the
notes ought not to be taxed, because they
may never De paid, and because the pur.
chaser has TO pay tax on the land any way.
Singular enough, the very men for whose
benefit the law was intended are loudest in
their condemnation of it. The land owner
cannot hide bis lands; he is assessed every
time. But many persons own large amounts
of personal property wholly unknown to
any one but themselves 1t cannot be as
sessed unless they disclose it. The inten-
ton of the law is to 'unearth'' all such
property, and compel the owners of person
al property to bear their part Of the public
burden along with the land owner, and
there is no doubt it will succeed. The
farmers and land owners certainly have DO
right to complain of the law. It was in
tended to make others share the burdens
equally with them. Everybody ought 10
remember that "no human invention is
perfect" The people ought TO give the law
5 patient aud fair trial before condemniDg
it. At all events, they ought fully to I'M
Oerstand it before passing Judgment.
FAIR TEST.