Daily Los Angeles herald., 1879-04-12
MsW Constitution.
No. TX.

|
so largely and ably discussed ths
little remains to be said for o
against it. The article, it i
claimed by its advocates, does no
authorize inequality of taxation
Ifso, why omit, e.r iadustria, as W.
know was done, the principle rec
ognized in the present Constitu-
ton, as in those of almost all thu
Sts tes in the Union, that "taxatiol
shall be equal and uniform?n The
omission must have been with 0
purpose. What was that purpose,
if not to open the door to taxation
that should not be equal and uni
form? True, the first section de.
clares that "all property not ex.
emp pt, elc., shall! be taxed in pro.
portion to its value, to be ascer-
tanned as provided by law" and 1t
seems to be assumed that this pro.
vision will subserve the same pur-
pose as that quoted r''u the pres
ent Constitution. II 1t does, W hat
was attained by omittiuG the ex-
isting provision? But it daes not,
as | shall proceed TO show.
1t has been said that the prov
ion in question does not authorizr
double taxation, because, un er the
new Constitution, all property
shall be taxed in proportion to its
value, and that double taxation
will not be "in proportion to its
value" Granted, so far as the spe-
cific identical property is concerned;
but this new Consti ion has,
with an ingenuity to be admired
though not commended, got around
the difficulty by Grating nun Der
of properties out of. the same value.
Section ], Article XIII, defines
"property" to inclute "moneys,
credits, bonds, stocks, dues fran.
chises, etc." 1t Is perfectly just
that all real values shall Contribute
to the support of the State by way
Of taxation. For myself, 1 am op-
posed IN theory to any exemption.
But how will the provision quoted
operate?
1 have thousand dollars in coir.
am thus just as itch, but not a
Cert richer, than he who has one
hundred acres Of lani valued at
$40 / er acre.
II | have it on hand when the
A SCISSOR comes around, am as.
sesse' for it, But suppose I have
loaned ii to my neighbor, who has
1t on hand when the Assessor
comes. He assesses it in AS hands,
In proportion to its value, which IS
one thousand dollars. He then
clm IS to me to asses the promise
ry note winch received from A,
as evidence Of my loan. He assesses
that in proportion to its value, but
what is its value? Can he take into
consideration the fact that the
Identical twenty dollar pieces rep.
resented by the note have already
been assessed at their full legal
value? Certainly not? He can only
look to the note itself, and assesses
1t at Ne value which it possesses
for me, which is the amount ex-
pres cd on its face.
70 go still further: Suppose A,
my b rt0wer, shonld have loaned
the same $1,000 to B at an increased
rate OF interest. Then what is the
posture of af'4irs? /, the original
holder of the $1,000, have AS note,
which / value at j 600; A has B's
note. also valued at $1,000, and B
has the money, that is, The tangi.
BILE value. Myself, A and B are
each assessed for 1000, which, had
1t remained In my hands, woul
have been assessed but once. Thus,
by this critic q and fictitious sys
tenn, three proper ties ere created
out of one vaiqei and yet it is per
ieotiy obvious, that the wealth of
tue com munity is not increased to
tbs amount of a single cent. The
one value is the $1,000; the three
properties are, AS note to me, BIS
note to A., aa4 lastly the actual
twenty dollar pieces, which ex.
press the value Of $1,000 and no
more.
IT this is no In effect duplicate,
tripli cate taxation, should be glad
to know what is. Nay, the assess.
ment OF the $l,GgO need net stop
with b. He may have loaned the
sam money to q and he to d, and
thus the brisker the exchange and
paym ment the 0fteuer Is the one
original value subj -oted to taxa
tion. The par iculsr property in
each case, AS debt to me, aud BIS
debt to A Is taxed, no doubt, in
proportion to its value The OBJ
jeclion TO this part of the
article Is not that it does
not tax property IN pro-
porlion to it, value, but that
it multiplies objects of taxation
without increasing real values, and
out Of single intrinsic value
carves number of fictitious, un-
real values, each of which is taxed
In proportion to its nominal value
without reference to what the orig
inal value Or the other fictitious
values shall have paid.
IHaV sHcl provision VIII Oper-
ate as restraint OH lending money;
that it will necessarily increase the
rate of interest, is perfectly clear.
For we may rest assured that no
money lender will fail to provide
for the tax which he is to pay on
his note, by including it in the in
terest. And thus the burden will
fall on the borrower, and the very
purpose of the provision be defeat
ed. For no one doubts that pur-
pose Is the laudable one of compel
ling banks AID moneyed men to
contribute to the revenue of the
State more than they do under the
present system. But this end never
has been and never will be attained
by the taxation Of crodits. A tax
on incomes will alone, In oil prob
ability, effect the desired object.
The article declares that the Leg.
islature may provide for the deduc-
ton of debts from credits in taxa.