The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1877-05-17

proposition to refute, and hence this
much is worthless. Strange express
sions have to be applied to strange
subjects and strange men, and hence
we are led to say that Major West be
comes indirectly pointed when he says,
''Thoss who believe the Comptroller
correct in his view of the matter seem
to suppose that the Legislature derived
its power Of levylng taxes from the
Constitution" No one supposes any
thing of the sort, and every man in
this country is supposed to know that,
under the Constitution of the United
States, Congress can only do what it
is permitted or required to do, and
that, under the Constitution of Texas,
the Legislature may do all things not
forbidden by the Constitution. No
confusion has grown out of the failure
to draw the distinction between the
power to tax and the duty to do so.
Major West vauntlngly states that "the
Legislature has, Independent Of the Con-
stitutlon, power to tax all property not
exempted by the Constitution and laws
of the United States and OF this
State" Section 1, page 275, General
Laws, 1876, shows what personal
property shall be taxed, while sec
tion 3 defines what personal property
is. This will show what property is
exempt, and "farm produce in the
hands of the producer" not being COW
Nved in this exemption, we shall credit
MaJOS West alone with placing a con-
struction upon law and language en-
tirely at variNnce with the usual rules
of Interpretation. He claims that 'sthe
tax is not equitable o,uniform," =" simply
because "the land on which the farm
produce is grown is taxed 70 its full
value as farming land. The laAOrers
and hands are all taxed. The horseA,
mules, oxen, cattle, jacks and jennets,
goats, hogs, plows, harness, wagons
and teams, are all taxed. The farmer
has also his poll tax to pay. The crop
raised on the farm is the result, is the
product of the use of this property, on
which he is taxed. Why should this
product be taxed9" Suppose Major
West owns a lot on Congress Avenue
worth $1,000. This year he pays tax
on the naked lot. Next year he places
$4,000 building on the lot, and pays q
tax on $4,000. He rents the house for
$1,000 year, and places this at interest.
paying tax on the lot, the house and
the $1,000. Should the $1,000 be ex-
empt from taxation, because the pro-
duct of the use of this property? II
his logic is fair in the one case, it is
equally so in the other. AS to the
Lipscomb decision IN State v. Jones.
Texas Report, SSs, it is only
necessary to state that this decision
was then regarded as a political neces-
sity, and there was no necessity for its
reversal until 1859, as the treasury of
the State was always plethoric of
funds. The legislatures, under the
constitutions of 1869 and 1876, have
disregsrded the rule, and, under the
Constitution of 1869, the legislature
exempted farm produce, but the legis-
islature of 1876, under constitutional
powers and in view of the require
ment, included it. Mr.. Ramey con-
tends that the tax is required, but
would place the assessment at a day
when the farming interest would be
mostly relieved. Mr.. Ramey was a
leading member of the constitutional
convention, and no doubt studied the
question of taxation with more care
than Major West. The abilities of
these two gentlemen were directed
towards dissimilar questions, and Mr..
Ramey has been led, no doubt, to the
most careful investigation of the one
regarding taxation.