The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1886-04-24

EAkGGTlNk bhFAhIAhNI
CHARLEsToS, W, VA, April 81
" Hon, P, \, Duty, auditor.
DEAR gIR;-Hsving read the commune
cations to you from various asseesora, ask.
M instructions CUnCeTningthe exemptions
provided Tor In section 4S, chapter %,
Code Of West Virginia, ] conclude it 70 be
my duty to request that you instruct all
assessors that said exemption must be
made and said section enforced just es II
stands. Respectfully,
L, w, WILSON, Governor,
In accordance with Governor Wilson's
revocation Of Ex-Governor JacksOn's IA
NOUS supplemental assessment order,
State Auditor Duty will issue the follow
ing instructions to the various ASSESSORS Of
the several counties in the State, viz;
"You are instructed to exempt all articles
mentioned in section IS, chapter II, otthe
Acts OF 1881"
Governor Wilson gives the following
reasons for the reversal OF the order:
"Both the Constitutions Of 1863 and 1872
provide that taxation shall DO equal aud
uniform thrOughoul:the State,an all prop
erty, both real and personal, shall be tax
ed In proportion TO it's value; to be asCer-
tanned as directed by law, In ascertain
ing how property should be taxed in pro-
portion to its value, the Legislature enact.
E dissection A, chapter %, code OF 1868, ex-
empting from taxation for a single year
certain property therein named, and that
section without change has remained the
law OF this State to this day. Under Rgl-
tations and discussions rs to the C0nBtitu-
tionality OF this section, Assessors, Rs they
have the right To do, have asked ilstruC
tons from the Executive Department,
| am aware that it ia claimed that our
Supreme Court has determined the statute
unconstitutional in the chGnCery Of
the O. & o. Ry, 90. Va. Miller, Auditor 90
W. Va, 1851 and the msndamus case Of
Miller, Auditor vs.. Buchanan, Assessor
IA W. Va. 872) | do not 50 understand
either Of these cases, for the plain reason
amongst others, that no tax payer claim
ing exemption under the provisions OF
said section AZ, was before the court.
Whether the principles declared in the
O. 4, o, railway case may lead to the con.
ClHsion that said section l3 Is unconsti.
tutional and void, ] am not prepared to
say, but certainly the questions arising
out Of the railway charter and said section
43, are altogether different. Tho chatter
provides that nc taxation upon the-pro.
perry Of the said company shall be lmpos.
ed by the State until the profits of said
company shall amount to 10 per cent
on the capital Of said company, thereby
~exempting It's property from taxa
ton for an indefinite period and
practically declaring that it would not be-
liable TO taxation at all. Said Section 43
exempts simply certain products Of the
nuxtpreCediug year and makes them llabls
to taxation the next succeeding year, a
definite and fixed time. There are many
other differences familiar 10 all who have
considered this subject. In the case Of
Miller, Auditor, vs. Buchanan, Assessor,
the court on page 3Sl expressly declares
that; ave will not, therefore, In this case
decide the constitutional question raised.
In tho return We have seen that the re.
spondent as Assessor OF Brooke county has
no interest In 1t aud the parties directly
interested, to-wit: The Taxpayers Of
Brooke county are not before tho court.
1t will be time enough to decide upon the
COnstitutionality Of that section 43 when
the proper parties are before the court for
that purpose. After these decisions OF our
highest judicial tribunal, and after all
the public controversies eliclting differ.
ent aud conflicting opinions from the
able legal minds OF the State concerning
the Constitutionaliiy Of the Statute, the
Legislature Ia 1885, not only failed TO re.
peal or modify the statute, but when an
O,aa aAara1 IN kha gnnnIn -.
that purpose, II was defeated by the de.
Clsive vote Of eighteen to elk SENATE
Journal 1885, page 345 so the statute re-.
mains as the latest expression OF the
Legislatures will and judgment, and II ia
entitled to the highest respect from the
Executive Department. | can readily
understand that II n department Of the
Government attempts an enCrOaChment
upon the constitutional powers and duties
OF another, 1t Is the imperative duty OF
that other 10 assume the responsibility
and Judge and act for itself; that the dig.
nifty and equality Of q coordinate depart
ment and our form ofgovernment itself be
maintained, but that IN Executive should
not only interpret oil the various statutes
for tho administration Of public affairs,
DuI buOulu hlbU ptuCe6u W uet6rulne III
every case, whether the Legislature has
transcribed It's constitutional authority
In the enactment Of statutes, 10 q doctrine
that would destroy respect and Contin-
ually invite conflict between the co.
ordinate departments, and such a doctrine
l do not and cannot entertain. 10 de.
clare a statute Unconstitutional Ia 80 Sc.
rious q matter that under tho we'll estab.
liBhed legal rule the courts even refuse TO
do 80 II q reasonable doubt exists. Much
stronger does this rule apply to q mere
executive in the ordinary transaction OF
governmental business. Without express.
ing any opinion upon the Constitutionality
Of this statute, / have no difficulty in al.
irving at q conclusion from an executive
standpoint, and that Is: To see that the
law BIO executed Just as the Legislature
made 1t, unless by Judicial determination