The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1893-03-30
"a SHOT IN THE WRONG DiREt
TTON."

IIDN.'
AUSTIN STATESMAN: The atten-
ton of The News 10 also called to sec
ton o, article 8, of the constitution
which provides that state tax on
property "shall never exceed bO cents
on the 500 valuation, and no county,
city OF town shall levy more than one
half of said state tax" 1t will be
seen from this and the former section
of the constitution we have quoted
that the alleged possibility OF tax
ing property out of tho hands OF
owners is an impossibility.
II the cited limitations were the
rule in practice state, county and city
taxes could never aggregate over $l
on the 500. VIII The STATESMAN
explain how il is that the rate in It's
own city Is far above that amount?
How is it under The STATEsMAN's
Interpretation of this prohibitive Sec
ton of the constitution that the rate
In Galveston is 81 So, in Dallas 1922,
and above these figures in other cities
of Texas? In the face of the cGnstltu-
tional provision which it invoices
The STATESMAN advocates "the pas
sage of Mr.. Breeding's bill, the pro-
visions of which subject real estate in
municipalities to local taxation at the
option of the citizens. "--Galveston
News.
It is certainly unbecoming in
newspaper that processes to lead in
editorial ability in the state of Texas
to dodge an issue SO palpably. The
last sentence quoted from The
STATESMAN by The News beginning
with "the passage of the Breeding
bill, 3" etc., shows plainly what the is-
cue was between The STATESMAN
and The News, and that is whether it
is best to establish the system of local
option taxation or not What does the
fact that cities have exceeded under
special provisions tho acts referred to
governing general taxation have to do
with the propriety OF local taxation?
The Galveston News Is authority that
the cities of Galveston and Dallas
have exceeded their powers under the
general law. Are they more likely to
do it hereafter under local taxation
when it would require vote of two
thirds of the taxpayers to do SO?
Now we will answer the in
terrogatories so truthiully pro-
pounded by The News. Aus
tin has never exceeded the
authority under the constitution to
levy a tax over two and u half per
cent, being city of over 10000 popu-
lation. Other cities have exceeded it
under the decision of the courts, that
creditor could force city to provide
by taxation, a sinking fund to meet
any debt incurred previous to the con.
stitution of 1876 even if the charter of
the city did not authorize it. This
principle was decided in the case of
Voorhees, vs.. the mayor of Houston,
Texas Reports, vol 20 page 33l. In the
case of Lufkin vs. the city of Calves.
ton, Texas Reports, vol. SO, page 4S7,
the court ruled that article II, section
8 Of the constitution was an exception
to the general law and directly appli.
cable to cities of 10000 inhabitants
and over and that the Legislature had
right to grant the city council of
Galveston the power to levy ninety
nine cents on the 500 for general
municipal purposes. That and other
exceptions such as taxes necessary to
pay the public debt and for public
schools have contributed to run up
the rate of taxes of Dallas and Gal
weston. But that does not touch
the question at issue, which is would
not there be AZ much safety under
local option taxation as there is now
under the present mode of taxation?
The very same restrictions would be
thrown around it; the very same PEG.
pie would vote upon it. The only
difference is that each county, city or
TOWN. Guild consider its own necessi-
ties and submit to the people basis
OF taxation to meet its peculiar wants.
Why then would Galveston object to
Austin managing its own affairs under
the same general laws, and why would
county way up in North Texas object
to Travis county levyinK a tax to suit
ITSELF The Galveston News objects to