West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1884-03-14

40 ~ 1uS POOiei VI tub IlCueE GLASS I
Let the facts answer. Who are most
likely to have agricultural produc
tiono. Of their own raising, on hand
on the fret day Of January OF any
year? Not the poor for if they have
any grain or -four on hands at that
time, in nine cases out OF ten, they
bought it or worked Tor it, aud then
it is not exempted.
Who are the owners of mines, salt
wells and oil wells in this State the
rich or the poor
Who are engaged in manufacturing
IN this'Sta'e ? Not the poor, for if
be manufactures a pair of boots or
shoes, coat or horse shoe broom
or set of harness, he is not full hand
ed enough TO keep it on hand on the
first day Of January.
If poor mans cow has calf it ia
usually sold before the fret dav of
January so il he has a pig it is killed
for the use OF his family before that
day. The poor mans COW or his
bed or his breakfast table or his rag,
or other cheap carpet,is not exempt,
nor the two hundred dollars worth of
property exempt by law from Distress
or levy Tor his debts, is not xempt
from taxation.
So that the poor man must see that
the benefit Of this largely increased
exemption form taxation is not for
him, was not intended for him, and
does not reach him; but was only in
tended to reach the more opuleut
sgricuIturist, or farmer;the raiser or
graizer and breeder of stocks the
owner Of coal mines, salt wells and
oil wells, and the large manufacturers
who,i most instances. are the NAbobs
Of the land.
We are led To make these remarks.
because In most insta ices, that we
have seen those iavoring these in
creased exemptions, belong to one or
the other Of these classes of Nabobs.
Let US instance F. H, Pierpont and,
Sir Charles Geenps.
Would it not be rather funney if il
should turn out that these gentlemen
are only covetIng Governor Jackson
place, aud to this end hope to pro
mote their own interests by securing
the Granger influence in the State 2
But we have been DEPRESSING from
the course OF remarks we had marked
out to ourselves at the beginning,
and CO ne back to the Act Of 1881,
alluded to aud ask, here is an Actin
open conflict with the plain require
ments OF the Constitution in so far as
1T attempts to exempt property not
exempted, or allowed To be exempted
by the Constitution to the Act, or
the Act to the constitutional
Every tOlerably well informed mind
will at once say, the Constitution is
the supreme law of the State, and
therefore the Act, in 80 far as it is in
conflict with the Constitution, mus,
give way to it. Not only 80, but the
Act, in so far as it is 10 conflict with
the Constitution, 10 VOID and OF no
force OF effect,
The Governor, in order 10 see that
the laws, Oncluding the Constitution
as the higher law were faithfully
executed had necessarily, to construr
both the Act and Constitution,
ana thl9 being done, he was un-
der his oath, and the plain require
ment Of the Constitution, bound to see
that the valid one was faithfully ex-
ecuted, and this duty we are proud
TO say be did faithfully execute,with.
out looking to the right or the left to
see if it would be popular TO 10. And
1t is refreshing to f1d our Governor
among the lew in Office now a. days,
who have the Jaoksonian honesty aud
independence Of character TO prefer
duty TO Office, and such, we believe
will be the verdict Of the people Of
this State when they come to under.
stand the matter about which there
is now 80 much clamor.
Again, we come back to The thread
OF our discourse the Governor thus
construing these provisions Of the
Constitution and o. the Act for him