The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1877-05-10
sTUPRN00Us sUIT-TnK DEMA.
GO0UEs v. THB LAW AND CON.
sTITUTION.

Can 1t be possible that honest and
sensible men will differ a. to the con-
struction Of the Cor Stitution and the
statute upon the question Of imposing
q tax upon produce" in the hands Of
the farmer It Is asked in what con-
sists the difference between the Con-
stitution Of 1879 and former constitu-
tions, with the laws enacted thereun-
der. Section 81, article 8, Constitu-
ton 1s45, provides that taxation
shall be equal and uniform throughout
the State. All property in this State
shall be taxed in proportion to its
value, to be ascertained - directed by
law, except such property a. two-thirds
OF both houses of the Legislature may
think proper to exempt from taxation"
Section 10, article -, Constitution of
1859, 10 identical with that quoted
above; but, section 1, article 8, Con-
stitution of 1875, provides that TAXA
ton shall be equal and uniform. All
property in this State, whether owned
by natural persons or corporations,
other than municipal, shsll be taxed in
proportion to its value, which shall be
Gscertained A. may be provided by
law; procidsd, that two hundred
and fifty dollars worth Of household
and kitchen furniture, belonging to
each family in this State, shall be ex-
empt from taxation." Why did the
convention Of 1875 change tho rule
and phraseology Of those of 1s45 and
1859 and why did the convention see
fit to leave out the following very sig
nificant feature in the tax articles in
the constitutions Of 1945 and 1869.
"except such properly ~ two thirds of
both houses Of the Legislature may
think proper to exempt from taxa
ton 7" Clearly for no other reason
than that the question of exemption
should not be left with the Legisla-
ture, except in the few instances
pointed out in the Constitution.
Section 2, article 8, and section 8, arti-
Gle II, Consultation, 1875, however,
authorizes the Legislature BY general
law to exempt public property,
churches, cemeteries, school buildings
and school furniture and institutions
Of public charity; and section 2, srti-
Gle 8, solemnly declares that "all laws
eIsmpting property from taxation,
other than the property above men
toned, shall be void" Can the Eng
lish language be made moro specific
and certaini Under the Constitutions
of 1s45 and 1869, the Legislature did
exempt, as they were empowered to
do by two-thirds vote, 'all products Of
the soil Of present and previous years
growth only, while in the hands Of the
producer" The exemption under the
Constitution OF 1859 was passed
August Is, 1870. (Ses subd. 5, ar
ticle 1855, Pas. Dig.) The conclusion
is necessarily reached that as the Con-
stItution OF 1876 did not exempt farm
products that had been gathered and
absolutely inhibited the Legislature
from making such exemption, this
property" must be taxed. And,
moreover, il the Legislature had e1-
empted this class Of property" the
statute itself would have been ''void,"
utterly void; else, what does the clause
of the Constitution referred to mean
by saying that sail laws exempting
property from taxation, other than the
property above mentioned, shall be
void"
Again, some 60 so far - to say that
farm products that have been gathered
are not property" IN the intent and
spirit of the law and Constitution.
II this be true, why did the Legisla-
tures from 1s45 down to this good
hour SO regard itf II not property, p"
as some have said, ''in . taxable
sense, " why did the Legislatures under
the Constitutions Of 1s45 and 1869 ex-
empt "all products of the son
while in the hands Of the pro
ducerf" The argument is so fsllacious
and the question SO clear from the
other standpoint, that common serse Is
offended in attempting the automatic
solution. And just here We will men
tion that the Legislature travelled be-
yond the confines Of its powers when
it exempted ''notes held A. purchase
money for land," aud the statute 10
null and void, and for the simple res-
con that it directly contravenes the in
hibltion in section 2, article 8, Of the
Constitution, which declares such laws
void.
The Constitutional Convention took
the manly and honorable view Of this
question when 1t travelled out Of the
blazsd and beaten tracks Of its prede.
cessors by inhibiting the exemption Of
farm produce while in the hands OF the
producer. Honesty demands that all
men should bear alike the burdens Of
government-the merchant, the farmer,
the lawyer, the black and white, should
be grouped togsther-whether income
arise from physical or mental skill and
labor. The officers selected to admin
lister the law must take the law -
they hnd it; and, having solemnl5
sworn to administer the law (not, per-
hsps, a. it should be but n 1t is), this
tax must be levied and collected. So
much the more to their credit - hon.
est and capAble nea that thcy 20 for
ward in the discharge Of their duties
regardless of the clamers Of the poll
ticians and people. After all, it is
mainly q question that the demAgoguss