Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1884-01-31
raxPAYER AND FARMER.
rnA alioo. the Consultation the Audit
or and the Court

l did not see Taxpayers" reply to my
complaint until the Gath. am glad that
he has helped to impart information to
the public, for "nullifying" the law which
exempts from taxation the products of the
farm and farm animals less than year old
affects every farmer in the State, and |
think il is due to them that the matter
should be fully explained. The Auditor
cannot afford to remain silent while the
thousands of farmers all over the State are
required to list for taxation property that
has been exempt IRON time immemorisl.
| find these exemptions substantially In the
code of 1850, the Acts OF 1853, the code o.
1868 and in the Acts of 1881, which is now
the law. And by the way, ii is generally
understood that the Legislature of 1881
had in il some of the ablest lawyers
and best men in the State and they
were sworn 10 support the Constitution OF
the State, as the Auditor is sworn. Again
the Legislature OF 1888 was composed OF
able and good men, and their attention was
specially called to this matter, yet they
made no change and the whole responsible
ity rests upon the Auditor. II he is right
be can make it plain 70 the farmers; II he
has made mistake, lit is but human to
err" he can yet correct the error and no
harm will be done.
In the coming campaign this matter will
be Numbered from every Republican
stump, and insinuated at every fireside
and the Democratic party will be held re
sponsible and We will have to meet 1t.
have simply this to say that "raxpay-
er's" explanation is not satisfactory. He
says, Must the Auditor instruct
the assessors to carry out an un-
CGsy his own oath and direct
them to disregs I'd the unconstitutional
law? plainly the latter. The Auditor
will give no other instruction and all law
sliding citizens should obey It. | assert
that the Auditor las nothing To do with
the Constitutionsljty or uuconStitutlon tlty
cf the law. presume that taxpayers will
sgree with me that according to Our form
on government the Judiciary only can lie
clare a law unconstitutional. and that until
the court declares Law unconstitutional
IL is presumed to be constitutions, snd
that ii is the duty OF the executive officers
to obey and execute the law no matter
what their opinion may be Of its constltu
tionality. Has the Supreme Court OF APP
peals of our State declared the exemption
in favor OF the farmer in section Is, chap
ter u, acts OF 1881, unconst Ilional? II the
court has dole so 1t is the duty OF the
Auditor to disregard that exemption, but
IL the court has not done so the Auditor
has 70 authority to nullIfy the law. and il
is tyrapn and oppressive for an execu-
tive officer to srrogate to himself the exclu-
sive prerogative Of the judiciary.
The Supreme Court has not declared the
exemption clause in favor OF the farmer
unconstitutional. This law was not be-
tore the court, and if in cons!d.
hat
constitutionality OF Section Z, of the act OF
the Legislature passed March l, 1866, the
Court had gone so far out of its way as to
intimate that Section 43, Chapter II, acts
lsSlwas unconstitutional lit is an insult to
the Court to suggest that it did such
thing this intimation would, il made in
the strongest language, only have been an
nbiter diciUnl, and no decision. Taxpayer
is candid enough not to claim that the
Court has declared the formers exemption
unconstitutional. He reasons from the de-
cisio of The Court in the case Of the c. Il
q. Railroad Company vs.. Miller, Auditor, 10,
", Va, reports page 40S, that this exemp-
ii, u is unconstitutional, there is ditfer-
erce between the Court announcing
principle and making decision. We may
reason from principle, but we are bound
by decision. The principle announced
by the Court in that case may make it plain
~
that the former exemption is uncoDstitu
tional, but that is not the question. will
not be drawn into discussion
of the constitutionality Of this ex-
emption. | leave that for lawyers
and the courts. My proposition is that
the Court has not declared this exemption
repugnant To the Constitution, aud until
the Court does 50. or IL is changed by the
Legislature, il is tie ctC'sl duty Of the
Auditor and ASS ssors TO obey ami execute
h. law. and for him or them ~ inquire
INTO or pass upon is consti,u,ionslity is
dsrserous and and tyrauu cal,
TAXPAYER eNpresSe, MY Idea when he
saws: When the COU:, NGs tscla-si that
certain exemptions are M 0Hs'itutioaal
IL is the duty Of the Auditor 20 direct the
Assessors 10 disregard thesr exemptions.
IcCmplain that though the Court las not
declared the eNGmpii.rs n sS"9s Of the
fsrner Unconstitutional. YET tks Auditor
niTects the A SSeSsU:s a. disregard ;ha law.
don't want Taxpayer Ia reason that
the exemption is unconstitutional, or that
il has been so declared interentially, or as
a logical conclusion, or as the result OF
enunciatId principles, but has the Court
had q case before il involving the constitu-
tionality of this exemption, and in this
csse has ii declared this exemption repug-
uapt to the Constitution? 1t has not.
SBut again / complained that the e1smp-
tons mentioned in sections 50, 81 and 60
Of this same chapter IL, Acts 1881, are not
Of the exemptions enumerated in the Con-
stitution, yet the Auditor does not direct
the assessors TO disregard these exemptions,
Why? Taxpayer" says the Constitution
is all property shall be taxed, that is visi,
marks are "fsxpayer's." Whence does
that quotation Gomez Who made such q
decision? II is not in the syllabus of the
c. & o. r r. Co. VS.. Miller, Auditor. 1t is
not in the words of the Constitution. Tax
payer" interprets these exemptions as fol-
lows: what is the exemption in these sec
tons? After the merchant has listed all his
property he is required to 90 further and
list all his debts and claims due him aris.
ipg out of his business, but as against
these debts and claims due him he may
offset what he owes. Ii he owes more
than is due him he is not taxed on the
amount due him, but he is taxed on his
n erchandise although he may be in debt
for the whole of it. IL the assessor gives
any other construction to this Law
thsn the above he does not understand his
duty ard disobsys the Auditors instruc-
lions" Taxpayer" seems to sDeak with
authority for the Auditor, and IL is remark
able to examine the printed list that the
utterly different the Instructions are from
Ills Interpretation Of the law. l wish to
Il here that the printed lists are accord.
il < to the law and in the very language OF
le law as to these exemptions. On this
ist there are two oaths, one for the farmer,
the other the trader and business man.
The first oath Is: 81, -, solemnly
swear Tor affirm that the above list con-
tains, to the best of my knowledge and be-
lief, full and correct statement OF ali the
personal property, money, credits and in
ventious belonging to -, whether the
same are in or out Of the State of West Vir-
ginis. which are required by law to be list.
ed for taxation in the = assessment dis
trict OF - county, and that the valuations
sffixsd to the same are in my opinion not
Lelow the fsir cash value thereof" The
other oath is: II, -, solemnly swear (or
sfirm) that the above is true state
nent to the best Of my knowledge aud
b. lief Of the actual value OF the property,
money, credits and investments real estate
and property exempt from taxation ex-
cepteo) employed by - in the trade or