Daily Los Angeles herald., 1884-06-11
Shall Growing orops be Taxed

The test case in Santa Clara county,
In the matter Of h. Cottle vs.. L. A.
Splitter. Assessor Of that county, to re-
strain him from taxing fruit trees and
vines. on the ground that they were
oyo,piag crops. has been decided by
Judge Spencer in favor Of the Assessor.
The matter is Of vital importance to
numerous readers Ci the HERALD and
for their use and benefit the principal
points of Judge Spcncer's decision are
given. The case will now 20 TO the the
Supreme Court for final adjudication.
In Judge Spencer's opinion he uses the
following language
..The contention of The plaintiff Is that
that the class Of property Is Included IN
the term, growing crops. as found M
the constitution OF the State. exempting
the last named class OF property from
taxation. 1t is the settled policy OF all
governments, republican ia form, that
The burdens Of taxation shall fall equally
upop their citizens. IL may be-
concluded, aud probably correctly, that
at the present day, in this State at least.
the word ''crop' taken in its most com
prehensive sense includes fruit grown on
trees, but think 1t can bo affirmed
without serious contradiction, that trees
themselves, capable OF producing fruit,
never have been included in the term. As
| understand the able and ingenious ar
gument Of the learned counsel for plain
tiff. he does not claim that er cher
mum the words "crops" or grow
ing crops includes fruit bear
ing trsos, but because tho Constitu'
iion declares that growing crops
"shall not bc taxed, AMI inasnuch as
the fruit growing upon the trees Is a
growing crop" and that the tree Is nec-
essary for the production Of tho fruit and
Is substantially valueless for any other
purpose, therefore the taxing OF the tree
is in effect taxing the crop growing or
that may thereafter grow thereon, be-
cause, argHen,io. there being no trees
there couid be no crop.
IL a tree Is not IN fact II part OF the crop
Of fruit growing thereon do not under
stand how II can be made to appear that
the taxation Of the former IS substan'
TALLY aud In effect taxation OF the latter.
Perhaps some confusion might b.
avoided in dealing with this question II
il be borne in mind that crop when
perfected does not iall within any ex-
-emption or exception and is the subject
of taxation. by the very terms OF the
constitution the exemption OF crops
from taxation is Temporary and only
continues during its growing state. We
have then an article OF property, n
tree, that year by year produces
another article OF recognized value. aud
which Ia taxed from the time II comes to
perfection as long as II continues in OK
istence. How can 1t be said that the
taxing Of the ma,riS is illegal, or even
unjust when it's product is also taxable.
can understand that the system OF
reasoning sought to be enforced by the
plaintiff might have weight il the pro.
duet of the tree could not at any time,
or under any circumstances, be taxed.
II the only use to which an article can
be put, and therefore the only value 1t
has is to produce untaxable property--it
might with reason be claimed that the
article cannot have any taxable value.
| am of the opinion that it is the
duty OF the Assessor to assess fruit, nut
bearing and ornamental trees, and vines,
not Of natural growth, as directed in
Sectioa S,6l7 of the Political Code. 1t
results that the writ prayed for should be
refused, and IL is 80 ordered,