The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1878-06-19

H
tioh as Individual property as held nv ~
, courts 81 Iowa and Alabama. it il plai3 tba
tle Legislature cannot thwaIt the coustitu
1Ioual Ieqhrement by the easy process o
cnarterihg corporations beyond the 70 ri
OF the constitutional provision. If = cor
IoIaltoh escapes taxation bv yirtne IF
LtSi9iatlVe act, 1t IS not "subject to fd1atjo,a
whereas the constitution SAYS II STALL 10
;'iiu tiu9 d legislative act of incorporation
i maze TO aunul the constitutions Ii i
SAD thatcorporate property must be taxed
When individual property is, bat how car
!hat % II corporate property is secure il
iSlative grant?
The true view is that this provision of IN.
: CONSTITUTION fixes, beyond legislative act. the
cohdIiloh Of the property Of all corporations
toi Pecuhlaty Proht, as being always liable
10 me exercise OF the taxing power. so as To
SUBJECT It. at the viii of the Legislature II
inc same taxation as the property of tndi vid-
uhls may be subjected to. The Legislature
may exempt properly OF a particular class
whether the owners be corporations or natural
persons, but corporate property shall never
be placed hey ond the reach Of the taxtno
power 1t may not be xed, but it must BE-
ever liable. 1t need not be ''subj5cte6 " bui
must always be ''Subject" to taxation tho
same as that OF individuals, for the Constitu-
ton so declares. The provision is Bandatorsl
as TO universal liability TO be taxed b1t
PerH1Sst0e 20 the Legislature to tax the prop.
efty Of such corporations or exempt it. as II
may see proper, IN common with the property
OF individuals which may be taxed or not for
the time being.
Section II, Article XII of our Constitution
prohlblts the creation of corporations with
certain privileges therein enumerated. and
then follows Immediately section Is, which
declares that, - the property Of all CORPORA
tions for pecuuiary profits shall be subject to
taxation, the same that OF individuals
Il is thus suggested that the thought Of the
! trainers Of the Constitution was to forbid the
| creation of corporations with certain privi-
| legts, and leaving the Legislature free from
restriction as TO the powers it should confer
on corporations, except as inhibited by the
! 18th section, by the 18th section to declare
the liability TO taxation the same as that OF
| individuals Of the property of all corporations
| for pecunIary profit Section II Of the same
| article prohibits the authorization of any
| county, city or town to become a stockholder
| IN any company, "A ISOLATION or corporation,
except upon condition prescribed in it.
II Is thus seen that section Is is in the
midst ofrestrIctions upon legislative power as
TO corporations. and its association strength
| ems the idea its terms import. Nascttur a
| S0ctlS. Certain corporate privileges are abso-
| lutely forbidden by section Il. The liability
of corporate property to taxation the same as
that Of individuals is fixed by section 49, and
| the restriction Of section IA completes the
constitut ioual safeguards to corporations
TINS section stands "A barrier to any legis-
IatIye act whereby to make the property of
corporations for pecuniary profit not subject
to taxation the same as that of individuals"
| 1t sprang from the experience that corpora
tiOnS were III the haDlt OF asking ana obtain
ing legislative exemption from liability TO
taxation, and il intended to establish the
inteXible rule Of being subject to the same
| taxation that the property of individuals Is,
but leaving the Legislature free to tax the
| property Of corporations or not, on the same
| principle on which 1t may or may not tax that
| of individuals.
The fact that our Constitution does not con-
tain provision against irrepealable charters
| argues nothing against the foregoing view 3.
! The Alabama Court did not find in the pro-
| vision Of che Constitution of that State, like
| the 18th section, Article XII of ours, the
| intention to reserve TO the Legislature the
power 10 subject corporate property to taxa
ton, at all times, because, 1t Is said that
| purpose was accomplished by another section
! OF their Constitution, and that thus section
| was added To preclude the possibility of even
| Il temporary exemption of corporate property
/ from taxation. Undoubtedly, if under this
section there could not be temporary exemp-
! ton, 1t would be absured to say there could
be n perpetual exemption by charter.
The first clause Dissection 20 establishes
! the rule of equality and uniformity through
ont the State in taxation, and the other
| requires that all properly shall be taxed in
proportion to its value, to be ascertaincd as
| directed by law. This fixes the pri a ciple by
| which property shall be taxed, and leaves the
/ Legislature free 10 tax other things than
property, as 1t may deem TO be best, subj ect
only TO the rule of equality and uniformity,
as declared by the first part of the section.
the words " all property shall be taxed IN pro-
portion to its value do not require that HH
property shall be taxed, and deny to the
Legislature the right to exempt any. The
purpose of their employment is to fix the rule
! lor the taxation of property Before the
adoption of the present Constitution the
power and the practice existed to tax property
| without regard to value. The intent of this
provision was to protect against the taxation
of property except in proportion TO Its value,
to be ascertaIned directed by law. The
al ga{0rem rule in taxing property IS secured,
and the ascert3Inment of this value, as
| directed by law, is made necessary, so that the
| proportion to its value may be borne IN tbs
! matter of taxation of property. Ii the
purpose had been to prohibit exemptions
from taxation, 1t would have been declared
in unmis tak a bic terms. 1t was easy to declare
| that the Legislature shall not exempt any
property from taxation. The omission OF such
! a provision makes it certain that no such pro
hibition was thought of.
The Constitution of Missouri contained the
provision that "all property subject to taxa
! ton in this State, shall be taxed IN proportion
| TO its value, and in State Us A0rh et a., -
| Mo 464 the Judge delivering the opinion OF
| the Court said this provision has been re-
! peatedly construed by this Court to mean not
that all the property in the State must be taxed,
/ but that when any article of property IS Sc
! lected for taxation it shall be taxed in pro
| portion to its value, and not speclhcalIy.
! This view had been distinctly announced IN
| Hamilton e al, q. 50. Louis Co, It., 10 Mo, D
| l. is true that there seems TO be different
view announced in a very singular opinion OF
/ the majority Of the Court in CroT, ct az, q.
| The State IA Mo- DBL but the opinion of Nap
| ton, j., in that case is convincing III favor oil
| the opposite view and which, as seen. subse-
ouentlv became firmly established IN That
! State He says; g understand tins proVls,
! ion of our Constitution to be simply designed
| as an Injunction upon the Legislature 10 lay
| M y1Lore8a taxes upon such property as may
/ he selected for taxation. 1t does not pronlpit
| exemption, or discrimination; 1t does not deny
! ia the Legislature the right to select such oo-
! ects of taxation, they may deem most APP
J1ronriate The Legislature can
| not make law declaring that my horse, which
| is worth fifty dollars shall pay the same taH
| with neighbours which is worth one hundred
| This would be a specific tax upon horses. Wlths
out reference to their value But they may
| decline to tax exempt from taxation an
| horses under certain age, or all horses OF a
| narticular breed The Constitution OF Call-
| fnrnia contained these words, VIZ; All pro-
nertv in this State shall be taxed in proportion
70 IN In TSs PeoDh q. Coleman California, 46 it
was held in a well reasoned opinion, that
| the Legislature may select or exempt such pro-
perty in its discretion i may th fIoPw ro
| per'f for taxation. This ruhng vas lQllo"eu
| in High u Shoemaker, y CAL, 800.
l. il true that these cases were as to TINS
overruled in People a. Nc Creery. "a Gal, 40,
and that subsequent cases nave ioIo"eu tn n9
last named case, but we CONSIDER tne vi" one
| in the earlier cases named the souhuer one,
md certainly as that with which, II any the
the trainers Of our Constitution were &C. taL
ted because the case of teopte .. NC fsfSS
49, fnaIIv decided at the January TERM looo
s of shs SSPGSS volume Of cases
and il is highly improbable that know Cange
Of the new doctrine Of ahe 9allIerf pbsrefore
had 6sSSm9 gG fhs Gons
tuition of California it is to be held rnat %e
took it with the settled judicial that
placed qPpn Of the Constitution had in view
me me Instruction adopted in The People o. CoIe
ma and h Shosmdkf e. Years. 20 span aud l ac
whlcn n1a n nv the Courts and people Of CAN
qale;so1u It'll the time of the case IN 81 Cah-