The Opelousas courier., 1894-11-17
The Wisdom of Exemptions.

The OF both the great parties
in the New York assembly Of 1894,
backed by almost the solid vote of the
adjoining counties, and with the sup
port of many members from farming
districts, urged the passage of a bill,
allowing home rule and local option,
in matters of purely local taxation. 1t
will be again presented. That meas
ure commands the warm approval Of
all parties and all classes in the cities,
especially of the trade and labor or
CARNATIONS. which are unanimous in
demanding it. But it also commands
the approval Of a large and rapidly in
creasing proportion of the farmers and
laborers in the rural districts. Is it
wise to leave to this vast number of
electors no choice, except to submit to
the defeat of their wishes on this inn
portant question?
The New York convention of 1867
proposed Il uniform rule of taxation
for both real and personal property. A
large majority of that convention felt
sure that their constituents demanded
such a rule. But the people rejected
that proposition, separately submitted,
by a majority of nearly &c, 1000; and they
rejected almost the entire constitution
with it, by $4,000. And not the least
notable fact was that some of the heav-
lest majorities against uniform taxa
ton were given by the very counties
whose delegates had most urgently
pressed it on the convention. The peo-
MA NJ this S$nto y-a,o MT ~ fp ~ ~
uniform rules in taxation then; they
are not now; and they never will be.
The experience Of Ohio should be a
warning. to us. In 1850, the people of
Ohio adopted y constitution compelling
uniform rules of taxation: and Ohio
statesmen, of all parties. have long felt
its Inconvenience and have made sever
al attemptst to get rid Of it. -Four times,
at least, the legislature has voted, with
substantial unanimity, to strike this
clause out of the constitution; and a
large majority of votes was cast in sup
port of this action. But the constitu-
ton of Ohio can not be amended, with
out the vote of a majority of all elect
ors voting for governor; and as many
thousands failed to vote on this ques-
ton at all, the clause still stands, to
the great injury of the state and the
endless annoyance Of its legislators.
There r still other difficulties in
making tax legislation uniform and
Interchangeable. Taxes on SUGGESTIONS
now form part Of all state systems, and
these, with taxes upon corporations,
seem likely to furnish all the revenu
needed for state purposes. The success
ion tax laws provide for certain exempt
ions. Are these never to be modified?
Succession to children, who have been
practically adopted for ten years, are
exempt from the higher rate. Should
q legislature be prohibited from ex-
tending the same privilege to children
OF eight years adoption? Five hun
drcd dollars are exempted altogether.
Is it q matter Of life and death that
this $500 should never be increased to
$1,000? In case the revenue from these
ource should produce a surplus for
the state, may not the legislature ex-
empt some o. all other property from
taxation for state purposes? Pennsyl-
vania derives so much revenue from
similar sources that she exempts real
estate from all taxation for state pur-
poses. Why should we insist upon tax
ing farms for state purposes after it
becomes unnecessary to do so?
Suppose that it is a good thing to tax
personal property. Does it follow that
such q tax can be best collected by uni
form rules? The experience of Con-