The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1900-07-17


IL is, theoretically self imposed burden.
Since the days OF the revolution. taxa
tion has been recognized as a representa-
tive act.
THE power to tax necessarily implies
a power TO exempt.
Taxation being legislative power, IL
is not the province OF n court TO review
IL. except i'm cases where the power is
limited by constitutional restrictions.
The court is then to say whether the
legislature had power to pass a given
law; not whether IL should have passed
it,
THE SUNDAY CLAUSE.
"The provision of our constitution whi\h
the plaintiff claims TO be limitation on
the taxing power is the clause quoted
above: All laws. therefore, should be
made for the good of the whole; and the
burdens OF the state ought to be fairly
distributed among it's citizens
The chief justice says the court holds
this clause to be directory, not manda-
tory
"Hs honor says there are other bur-
dens imposed. and IL the state cannot
exempt property from taxation the ques-
ton Is how can the state exempt resi-
dents and citizens from jury and militia
duty.
Attention is calledto the exemption OF
",
10 Judge Tillinghasts statement I'm the
case OF Brown university VS., Granger. 10.
r. l., 70i, that II Is wholly unreasonable
to say the general assembly has no power
to exempt the university property from
taxation. ss.A a.s-l....s,.s l.s..
NO VIOLATION.
Continuing the chief Justice says:
at Is automatic that a law is to be held
constitutional at violates provision Of
the constitution. Pas
I'm view or the equality OF the
branches OF government the judicial cam
not annual the action of the legislative
branch unless its duty to do so is plain
and peremptory.
Hence the provision which court n
asked TO apply as a limitation of Iegisia-
tive power. must also be plain and per-
emptory.
I'VE have already said taxation IL q
legislative function I'm Merriwether VS..
Garrett i02, u. s., 472.5ol. Waite. &. j..
announced as the proposition OF the
court
''The power of taxation Is legislative
and cannot be exercised otherwise than
under the authority of the legislature
This being so. a law relating 90 taxa
tion cannot be held 10 be unconstitutional
upon general or uncertain expressions,
but only upon plain restrictions
QUESTION OF POLICY.
As 70 the taking away OF the property
OF one for another the case the court
says is not quite that. and does not differ
I'm principle from other exemptions.
"It is q question OF policy with which
the court has nothing 10 do. the legisls-
ture having the power 10 decide.
THE remedy is In the hands OF the
people and not OF the court
I'VE appreciate the force Of the arsu-
ment that such a law permits unseemly
competition TO entice business from an
other town. but the point Is one OF pol
icy and not OF law.
"It should be addressed to the legisia-
ture and not 20 the court. II may be
said that Il II unfair to tax one whose
factory is built while new competition
is exempt.
This seems 90 be at first glance and i'm
as wiEgan VS.. Hunter. Is -. l., 775, a
case of intentional and unauthorized
omission. we said that a.. would be ~
legal. The acts In question were not
then In force. In McTwiegan vs. Hunter.
10 r. L.. Is. the constitutionality OF Pub.
Laws. chapter loss. not being directly in
volved. We remarked that Il was ~ least
susceptible OF doubt
.I,ut now upon n closer yisW of lhe