St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1881-02-25

stitutional, so too would law taxing
actual value of their property and GER
tain other ones upon double its value.
If | am correct in these conclusions,
it seems evident the law passed at the
last session of the legislature, entitled
San act to equalize taxation" is uncon-
stitutional.
This act requires the secretary of
state to prepare formula for lists, he
being the sole judge as to the form.
These lists or forms are to be distribut-
ed to tax payers, to be filled out by
by them, sworn to and delivered to the
listers on demand. The listers may ar
bitrarily refuse to accept such lists as
satisfactory, and thereupon it becomes
their duty to ascertain as best they can
the amount af taxable property of said
person, appraise the same at its true
value in money, double the sum so OBJ
tained, and set said amount in the
grand list for taxes to be assessed up
on.
This is not assessing taxes upon pro-
perty in accordance with the provisions
of the constitution, but upon penalties,
upon heavy penalties, imposed by
whom Not by courts having cOmpc-
tent jurisdiction upon a full and impair
tial hearing, but by board of listers.
A tax payer may have given in Il full
and true list under the sOlemnity of an
oath, yet the listers for any cause, or
without cause, if they shall choose to
say that it is not satisfactory to them,
may double or treble his list, and final
ly double the amount they conclude
his property should he valued at, as n
penalty, which gross sum shall be his
grand list. Let us suppose case: A
tax payer hands in his grand list, filled
out and sworn to according to law,
showing the value of his taxable pro-
perty to be fifty thousand dollars. The
listers are not satisfied with it, and un-
der their license to ascertain what they
| think it should be, ''as best they can"
they fix upon one hundred thousand
dollars as the value of his taxable
property, they then add the penalty,
making his list two hundred thousand
dollars. One per cent. of which is two
thousand dollars, this being the sum
upon which his taxes will be assessed
upon, instead of five hundred dollars,
as it would have been as given in by
himself under oath. Now, suppose the
taxes of the locality for the year ag-
gregates $50 per cent. on the grand list,
his taxes will be S5000-SI250 upon his
actual property, $3.50 upon his sup
posed property, and S2500, as penalty.
1t seems to me this is placing too much
power in a board of listers, and that it
is an Infringement upon the. rights of
the people as guaranteed to them by
the constitution. See Secs. 10 and -
of the Bill Of Rights in the constitu
| tion.
| am not aware of any decision hav
ing been made by the supreme court of
the state upon these sections, that will
warrant the imposing of fees of this
magnitude, except by a legal tribunal
upon full and impartial hearing.
There are other grave objections to
this law. will, however, mention but
one other at this time, viz: The tax
payers are required to make positive
oath to what they cannot positively
know. They are not allowed the lati-
tude that all officials are i'll taking Oaths,
nor that witnesses are upon the stand,
that is, to swear according to their best
knowledge, recollection and belief, but
the oath is positive and absolute, while
the subject matter about which the oath
is required, is of the most uncertain
nature possible. 1t seems to me the law
is not only unconstitutional but i'm
practicable.-CO Correspondent ST. Albans
Messenger.