Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-03-01
SPEECH oF HON. GROVE l. JOHNSON

In the Senate of California, on Friday,
February 27th, During the Discussion
Of the Majority and Minority Bulls
en Revenue and Taxation.
IPhonegraphically reported by E. B. Willis, Senate
reporter Of the RECORD UNION.
Mr., JsaINsoS-Mr President do not know that
/ can enlighten any Senator upon this floor; do
not know as can throw any light upon the subject
do not know that can properly express my own
views, but / know this-that / do not propose in
discussing this question to he bound to any
technical construction that may have been given
in the past by any Court to any other provision of
any other Constitution. | propose, in giving my
reasons AID in casting my vote upon this PROPOSE.
tion to act III that manner which it seems 10 me
common sense die aeS; to act in that manner which
think the interests the State OF California die
tate, wit hout reference to what may read what
/ may consider from some decision Of some Court
upon proposition entirely different from that which
We are now about to vote upon. may be pardoned
for saying that one of the reasons which mpels me
to take that course is that has been truly said by
Senators upon this floor, there are decis ons both
ways upon this proposition. The Supreme Court of
the United States, the Supreme Court Of this State
the Supreme Court Of every State in the Union that
taXato have at varioss times rendered various de-
cisions proving what at the time simply the
views Of the Judges constituting the Courtsas to the
true relations which the laws bear to the Constitution
and which both bear the question of the revenue
that should be collected, and the manner Of
collecting that revenue from the people. The CIR
cnmstances OF the present case, the circumstances
which surrou us, the circumstances which led to
the adoption Of the Copsttution. which is our
gnide the debates in that Convention and the pres
ent aspect of affairs in the State all different
from that of any other state any other country
| in which decision has been rendered upon this
question. At the outset, again. may be Inrdoned
for saving, that far as l have been able to dis
GOV r, there is but one Senator upon this floor who
boldly favors double taxation. There is but one
Senator upon this floor who has the audacty or
courage, or whatever you may call it, to boldly
announce himself, or to qRiety announce
himself favor of double taxation, and that
is the Senator from Sonoma- He stands alone
in that position, announcing himself by his answers
to the questions put by the Senator from Santa
Clara, being in favor OF the double taxation OF
property in this State. While congratulate him
upon his courage, cannot admire him either for
his consistency for the ustness of his position
The provision of the Constitution which governs us
III the decision OF this question has been read so
many times that it scarcely needs for me to again
read it but inasmuch as shall refer to it hereaf-
ter in debate, desire to call attention to its
liar language: Gan property in the State not
exempt under the laws of the United States shall be
taxed in proportion to its value, to be ascertaned
inggniously said by the gentleman from Los Angeles
in proportion to its value Not at all but taxed
sin proportion TO its value, to be ascertained pro-
vided by law." What power, what authority is it
that provides the law? What power is it that pro-
vdes the means of ascertaining the value Of this
property which shall be taxed the Constitution
saws? The Legislature OF the State. We are called
upon now not to fix an arbitrary rate of taxation
but we are called upon to pass a law whereby can be
ascerianed tie value of property in order that may
be taxed in proportion to that value. The remainder
d. ---1 q
used in this article and section, is hereby declared
TO include moneys, credits, bonds, stocks, dues,
franchises, and all other matters and things real,
personal and mixed, capable of private ownership;
provided, that growing crops, property used ex-
clusvely for public schools, and such as may belong
to the United States, this State, to any county
or municipal corporation within this State shall be
exempt from taxation" Now the
PROVISIONS OF ALL CONSTITUTIONS
Are either mandatory prohibitory or permissive A
Constitution is mandatory when il says you shall
do certain thing. IL is prohihitOry when it says
that under no circumstance shalt certain line Of
action be adopted. 1t is permissive when it gives
the Legislature the power to decide whether or not
certain rule shall be adopted, either in framing
system of revenue or any other law. Our Constitu-
tion clearly is not mandatory upon the subject Of
doub taxation 1t is clearly not prohibitory upon
the subject of double taxation but the mai, set
of men, the Senator, hundred Senators, the news
paper or the hundred newspapers, that attempts to
say that this Constitution does not in express
permit double taNdIlOu, Is uD.DlnuIul u tuc
meaning Of the English language, and is seek
ing to befog a question PLAN that boy at
schoo can understand the meaning OF it. The Con-
stituton, in express terms, does permit double tax
ton and in the expressive language of the Senator
from the Eleventh. which can deny and sue
cessfully maintain his denial The question then for
us, wise legislators, to decide is having the per
mission for double taxation, shall we have double
taxation as the rule in this State SO far as am
concerned, can answer that question squarely and
| fairly. Never shall my vote be given for any law
which directly indirectly permlts double taxation
treble taxation i'll this state. Now, as bearing
upon the question that notwithstanding the unfOr-
tunate wording of this Constitution, which to
have been the panacea for all the evils that Califor-
mia has been heir to, notwithstanding the peculiar
wording of the Constitution which permits double
taxa ion those who framed this Constitution did not
intend that should have double taxation. Those
memberswho framed this Constitution, those people
who voted upon and discussed it, If their views
to be taken as bearing at all upon the question,
either of double taxation, in favor OF taxing the
capital stock of corporation. Now, it may be that
men have changed their views. recognize the
right and the duty of man to change his views,
and If any person who was member OF the Constitu-
tional Convention, and there voted against double
taxation, and there voted against the taxation Of
the capital stock of corporation, has seen fit to
change his views, that is his right and privilege but
trust that he will not ready, as some have been in
the past to accuse others of changing their views.
One Of the propositions submitted TO that Constitu-
tional Convention was as follows. The Committee
on Revenue and Taxation Of the Constitutional Con-
veution submitted their report, anG recommended
that the following be adopted:
"Section 2. All property, including franchises,
capital stock Of corporations joint stock asso-
Citations, and solvent debts, deducting therefrom
debts due to bona 1de residents OF this State, and
excluding growing crops, private property exempt
from taxation under the laws Of the United States,
public property belonging to the United States or to
this State or any munich ality thereof and all prop
| erty and the proceeds thereof which IS used ex-
clnsivey for charitable purposes shall be taxed in
proportion to its value, to be ascertained as directed
| by law"
There was plain, unmistakable declaration in
the report of the Committee on Revenue and Taxa.
tion that capital stock should be taxed. What did
the Convention do with that section? They voted It
down. Is not that declaration on their part that
they did not intend TO tax the capital stock OF cor
| porations? And the Senator from Sonoma is found
| voting agaiEst that proposition. Another propo
sition was submitted to that convention by Mr.
| Huestis, Of Humboldt, which provides as follows:
All property IN this State including fr<nchises'
capital stock of corporations joint stock associa
tions and solvent debts, except growing crops pri-
yate properly exempt from taxation under the laws
| Of the United States public property belonging to
| the Uni ed States or to this State or any county,
city and county, city or municipality thereof, ana
excepting all property, real and ers nai oeiongins
to and devoted to public in all public schooi us
trcts and departments in this State shall be taxed
in proportion to its cash value to be ascer'aned as
! directed by law" -,
| am reading from the joErnal OF the committee
| And the proposition was voted down bv the Consu
| tutionai Convention. Nos that is the second time
that the members Of the Constitutional Convention
declared by their votes that tney were nss 10 tavo
Of The taxation OF the capital stock of coIpo atons
| We read further, amendment introduced by Mr.
| Hale
chs and the capita stock OF corporations shah b,
| taxed in proportion to its value"
That was voted down by the Constitutional Con
venton also, making the third time tina. the Consti