The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1893-03-17
FRIDAY MORNING, MARCH II, 1893.
THE SINGLE TAX THEORY UNCON-
-... STITUTION4L

-s....1 STITUTTONAL
The Court of Appeals on Monday
filed an opinion declaring the single
tax system of Hyattsville, Prince
Georges county, illegal. Under an
act of the last Legislature the commits
sioners of the town adopted the Henry
George theory of taxation and threw
the entire burden of the support of
tie town government upon the land,
to the total exclusion of buildings, inn
provements and personal property.
The Court of Appeals, in reviewing
the case, quotes in support of its de-
cision the Constitution of the State,
saying:
The declaration of rights, article fif-
teen, provides that every person in
the State or person holding property
therein ought to contribu tie his pro-
portion to public taxes for the support
of the government according to his
actual worth in real or personal prop
erty, yet fines, duties or taxes may
properly and justly be imposed or laid
with political view for the good
government and benefit of the COM
munity. This provision has, with a
slight but not material change of
phraseology, been part of the Or
ganic law of Maryland for consider
ably more than century. Its pre-
dominant object is to provide by
fixed enactment equality in taxation
and to prevent as far as possible the
burden of supporting the govern
ment from falling upon some individ
uals, to the exclusion or exemption of
others. 1t prohibits unjust discrimi
nations, and while it remains in force
the landowner, be his possessions
large or small, will have an absolute
and complete guarantee that public
taxes cannot be imposed upon the soil
alone. Buildings, improvements and
personal property are, under its terms,
as liable to assessment for taxation as
land. Its theory is that the distribu-
ton of the burden over every class of
property alike will lessen the proper
ton of each individuals contribution,
whereby oppressive exactions from
property will be impossible
"As those who own buildings, inn
provements and personal property in
tangible as tangible-are equally pro-
tected in their possessions and in their
natural rights by the State and local
governments with those who own the
land, the support of these governments
should place no heavier charge upon
the one than on the other class of in
dividuals. This has been the uniform
and consistent principle always fol-
lowed in Maryland. Eminently just
in itself as a sound and long accepted
axiom, of political economy, it has
been Incorporated in her organic law
since November 8, 1776; it has been
upheld by her courts and steadily and
tenaciously adhered to by her conser-
vative people. -.-.F
The attempt made by the act of
1892 to disregard the fifteenth acticle
of the declaration of rights by exempt
ing all personal property from assess
ment must prove abortive, and as the
act undertakes to establish a scheme
Of taxation not warranted by the or
ganic law, it must be stricken down as
null and imperative We are not to
be understood as denying to the LegiS-
lature the power, when State policy
and considerations beneficial to the
public justify it, to exempt, within
reasonable limits, some species of
property from taxation. A long-con-
tinued practice, nearly contemporary
eous in its origin with the adoption of
the constitution itself, and many ad-
judged and carefully considered cases
decided by this court abundantly sup
port that power. But power to ex-
empt for reasons and upon considera-
lions which are sufficient to uphold
the exemptions is not a power to null
lily the constitution of the State.
The decision seems to imply that
the Legislature may pass laws exempt.
ing certain property, such as church
property, graveyards, manufacturers
plants, &C., from taxation, for reasons
Of State policy, but leaves it a matter
of doubt whether or not under the
Constitution the Legislature could
confer the power of exemption upon
Baltimore city or the counties.
An interesting point lately decided
by the Court of Appeals was whether
a person who has corruptly, knowing.
Iy, wilfully and maliciously sworn
falsely in giving testimony before the
grand jury can be indicted and tried
for perjury? 1t was argued that tc
convict witness of perjury in such
case the jurors must disclose what
transpired in the jury room but thi:
is against public policy, and therefore
no matter how clear the perjury may
be, no member of the grand jury il
competent to give evidence of it, anG
consequently, since no one else can be
cognizant of it no prosecution can be
maintained. The Court set aside thil
reasoning as fallacious and said thai
while the oath of the grand juror pre-
cludes him for all time from voluntar
lily divulging the counsels of the State
his fellows or his own, there is in the
very nature of things tacit condition
implied that, in the furtherance o.
justice, the juror shall, in some in
stances, speak when the law, through
its constituted tribunals, explicitly
commands him to do 500 The same
principle, we suppose, would apply il
the case of witnesses who swear tt
certain statements before the CRANE
jury which they afterwards repudiatt
when testifying in the case before the
court.
Senator Gibson called upon Presi
n so, 1