The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1884-10-11

Hlc Sull' anu tilc llfOuuCls Nnu Increase IN /
number OF live stock produced within this
state during the year preceding the tirSt
day OF january, and remaining unsold on
That day In the possession OF the original |
owner or his agent; the produce during
the same time Of mines, salt wells and oil |
wells within this State, remaining unsoll |
In the hands OF the producer or his agent
on the iirst day Of January; and al manu-.
factured articles and products oil mechan.
cal skill and labor produced in this State
during the same time, and remaining un.
sold on the tint day OF January in the
hnnds OF the producer or his agent"
The assessor claimed that the products
thus temporarily exempted were transient
and perishable in their nature. usually not
enduring throughout the whole tax period
OF n year; that as received but temporary
protection their value for taxation was
corrcspondingly reduced; that rs il was
impossible TO assess property every day in
the year and literally comply with the re-
quircmcnts OF the Constitution to tax all
property equally and uniformly, the Leg
islaturc might in selecting I'M arbitrary us
sessmcnt day relieve against full taxation
Tor year on an article existing on that
day, but which in few days would perish
that these products were consumed in the
creation OF the next years products, leav-
ing in existence only small percentage to
become capital which alone was properly
taxable; that the real estate from which
these products come remains assessed at
the same amount though its value might
be reduced by the production Of these eN.
emptcd articles; that the proposed sup
Elemental assessment was tax on labor;
that in every case where the question had
been raised it had been decided that the
products OF taxed land and taxed teams
were not property within the meaning OF
the assessment statute; that the assess
ment proposed constituted double and tn
equal taxation; that the question was
within the discretion OF the Legislature,
and that the construction given always
and by every one to the Constitution had
adiadged valid these so-cailed provisions
Of exemption but which were really rules
OF valuation.
Some OF the Judges suggested during
the argument that the question OF the gov
errors authority TO direct the assessment
WIS unimportant rs il the exemption was
unconstitutional it would have been the
duty OF the Auditor md assessor TO have
had the products tested without the Gov
ernor's direction. So the question OF the
Governors authority was not argued.
The Court Dodgcs tho Question.
But when the Court came to decide the
case they put their decision on
the ground OF the Governors authority
and ignored the Constitutional question.
The Judges declined to discharge their
duty Of interpreting the Constitution and
turned it over TO the Governor The
Governor having first assumed to be a
Legislature is now turned into court.
That this is not an exaggenlion is shown
by the following literal quotation from the
decision:
'The Governor, having jurisdiction OF
the subject, decided that the effect OF the
decision OF the Supreme Court OF Appeals
in K. X. Co. vs.. Miller, 10 W. Va. 43I, was
TO declare unconstitutional and void see
ton - OF chapter IL OF the Acts OF 1881 SO
far rs il excmp cd from taxation certain
property then specified, and that said
Chapter ~ WIS n complete Tux law without,
any portion OF said section, and requested
the Auditor, who has the oversight OF the
assessors in the various counties anil dis
tricts inthe State, to instruct The said ASSESS
ors in their assessments To disregard said
portion OF said section an,lassess the prop
rriy therein attempted 10 be exempted,
andthe Auditor gave said instructions; the
laws So construed by the Chief Executive
AMI given by the Auditor in his instrllc-
tons TO the asscssors was binding on
thnm "