The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-05-23

that the suggestion that the result of
compliance with the fundamental law
will tend to the abandonment of that
method of taxation altogether because IN,
euualtities accompany its pursuits, could
not be allowed to influence the conclusion,
hut the suggestion not unnaturally lnVlt-
ed attention to the contention OF appel
lant's counsel that the want of uniformity
and equality in this act is such as TO IN
Validate it.
"And figures drawn from the census are
given, showing that the enormous asserts
of mutual insurance companies, OF buliu-
ING associations, of mutual savings banks.
large productive property of eccleslasucal
organizations are exempted and !unat une
exemptions reach so many hundred mil
lions that the rate of taxation would per-
hans have been reduced One-half IT they
had not been made. We are not dealing
with the act from that point of view, but
assuming the data to be substantially re
liable. if this sum desired to be raised
| had been apportioned it may be dubted
whether any State which paid fits quota
and collected the amount by its own meth
DDS would or could under its constitution
have allowed a large part of the property
alluded to escape taxation, II so, petter
measure of equality would have been man.
tanned than would be otherwise possible,
since, according to the argument for the
government. the rule of equity is not pres
| cribed by the constitution as to tederal
toxation. and the observance of such a
rule as inherent in all just taxation is
purely a matter of legislative discretion.
I'VE are not here concerned with the
Question whether an income tax be or be
not desirable, nor whether such a tax
would enable the government TO dlmnlsh
| taxes on consumption and duties on I'M
ports and to enter upon what may be be.
iieved TO he a reform of its fscial and
commercial system. Questions of that
character belong to the controversies OF
nolitical PARTIES and can not be settled by
iudicial decision. In these cases our pro
vince is to determine whether this income
fax on the revenue from property does OF
does not belong to the class of direct
taxes. If it does, it is-being unappor,
tioned-in violation of the constitution and
we must so declare.
"Being of the opinion that so much OF
this law as lays a tax on real estate
and personal property are Invalid we arr
brought to the question of the effect O.
that conclusion upon these sections a!
a whole. 1t is elementary that the same
statute may be in part constitutional anC
| in mart unconstitutional, and if the part
are wholly independent of each other, tina
which is constitutional may stand whll
that which is unconstitutional will be re
iected. And if, in the case before us, Their
| il no question as to the validity of thi
act, except sections 81 to 81 inclusive
which relate to the subjects which hav'
been under discussion, and as to them w
| think the rule laid down by Chief Justic
Shaw in Watren VS.. Charleston is ap
plicable. that if the different parts are s.
mutually connected with and depend
ent upon each other as to warrant be
lief that the legislature intended it a
n whole, and if all could not be carries
out the legislature would not pass tn
residue if some parts are declared uncOn
stitutional all the provisions which ar
thus dependent, conditional or connected
must fall with them; or, as the point
is put by Justice Matthews in Poindex
ter VS.. Greenhow, it is undoubtedly tru
that there may be cases where one par
. of a statute may be enforced or const
tutional and another may be declared in
! operative and void, because uneonstItu
. tional; but these are cases where tn
parts are SO distinctly separable tina
each can stand alone, and where TIN
court is able 10 see and declare that tn
, intention of the legislature was that Pre-
? nounced valid should be enforceable, eve
| though the other part should fail. L
hold otherwise would be to substitute TO