Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-01-11
TAXATION OF TREES.
The Subject Again Brought to the Notice
of assessors

The Subject Again Brought to the Notice
of Assessors.
On the 9Th of last month the State Board
of Equalization solicited from the Attorney
General an opinion ss to the constitution
atty of that section of the Political Code
defining growing crops, to which that off
ciaI responded as follows:
ATToRSEY-GENERAL's OFFICE,
SACRAMENTO, December 10, 1899
To the Honorable The state Board Of Equalization:
In reply to your lie ter of the 9Th st mourning
as to the constitutionalty of Section 3617 of the
Political Code, as amended March It, 1889 defin-
ing growing crops have to say that think
the same is unconstitutional so far il includes
within that term grapevInes. nut bearing fruit
and ornamental trees. 1t is not within the
power of the Legislature to extend the meaning
of the phrase beyond what it was understood to
be at the time of the adoption of the Constitu
ton. When the Supreme Court passed on the
meaning of the term as used in the Constitution
in the case of Cottle VS.. Splitter 65 Cal. 456, it
taxed, except as otherwise provided in the Con-
stitutlon, aud manitestly the exceptions therein
provided cannot be enlarged by the Legislature.
IL is my duty as a law officer to follow the dee1-
sions OF the supreme Court. Very truly yours,
G. A. JOHNSON, Attorney General.
Accordingly the Board OF Equalization
has addressed to County Assessors the fol-
lowing circular
OFFICE STATE BOARD OF EQUALTziT on, /
SAcss sfENro, January ,, 1890.
To the AsscsSOr-SIR: Prior TO March Is. 1889
Section 36l7 Of the Political Code defined i'm
pr5vements'' as including "ail fruit, nut-bear-
ing or ornamental trees aud vines not of nat
ural growth The Constitution provides that
growing crops shall be exempt from taxa
ton" At the time OF the discussion OF the
Constitution in the Convention it was well ua-
derstO0d that the term growing crops in
euded only such crops as needed annual SOW
ing, as wheat, barley. corn, etc. For several
years there has been q contention that grow
iEg crops meant the trees and vines which
bore the crops. In lsS4 one Royal COttle sued
out a writ against l. 4. Splitter, he Assessor
OF santa Clara county to compel the defendant
10 refrain rom assessing fruit trees for the pur-
pose OF taxation. Inc superior Court OF That
county held that by ne term growing crops
nothing more would be understood than pro-
ducts from annual plants or cereals, and the
latter appears 20 be the sense in which the term
Is emplofe ia technical legal parlgnce. Il
may be conceded, and core tly, that at the
present. in this state at east the word crop,
taken IN its most comprehensive sense, includes
fruit grown on trees, bat we think it can be al
hrmed, without serious contradiction, that trees
themselves never nave been included in the
tenn. The case was appealed by the plaintiff
to the supreme Court, and that Court affirmed
the judgment of the Court below. The case
may be found IN vol %, supreme Court Re
ports, page 456.
The legislature passed an Act. approved
March 49, $50 after the assessment had been
begun, amending section 35l7 of the Political
Code, 50 far as 10 define growing crops as fol-
lows
"The term growing crops includes all grow
ing crops, cereals, vines, nut-bearing fruit and
ornamental trees"
We issued q circular in April, 1859, advising
you TO disregard the law As it was clearly IN
Constitutional II seems that there is to be a
renewed effort to induce the AssessOrs to exempt
trees and vines from assessment. We again ad-
Vise you that the Act is unconstitutional The
Supreme Court has often decided that the As
SCISSOR must obey the Constitution rather than
Ffs 1nH~ sHaaA #FfuHsT= IL
obeyed as it is construed by the Courts. The
last Legislature exceeded its prerogatiye when
il undertook TO exercise judicial powers, which
II clearly did whea il attempted to cOnstrue
the Constitution If the Constitution, by
growing crops, included only crops requiring
annual seeding, the Legislature had no power
to extend the term to include other property.
The whole claim that growing crops in
cludes trees may be popularity answered thus:
The statute authorizes the mortgaging of grow
ing crops Every man reading the statutes
knows it means the grain. or fruit, or berries
which are to be harvested and sold. Under the
late claim, the mort agee would have the rig ut
to dig up the trees and vines as being the
growing crop"
We have nothing to do with the policy of ex-
emptiug trees and vines from the assessment.
If the question was presented to the people as
an amendment to the Constitution, it would
deserve serious attention. We and you must
obey the Constitution as Interpreted by the Su-
pTeme Court.
We submitted the question to the Hon. George
A. Johnson, the Attorney-General, for his opin-
Jon, and received an answer, q copy of which IS
hereto appended. Respectfully yours,
C. e. MILCOXON, Chairman.
E. W. MAsLIN, Secretary.