The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1903-08-20
ARMER PERKINS Lawyer
A DISCUSSION B1

FARMER PERKINS Lawyer
Thorndike, l am in trouble.
have a neighbor, Abel Jones. He
is a dog fancier. has a great num-
ber of dogs, and was engaged in max
ing out his tax return. His assessor
told him he could have 500 in PEI
sonal property exempt from taxation,
and he wanted to take it in dogs.
The assessor replied to him lie could
take it in any personal property, ex-
eept dogs. Jones says he will have II
in dogs: now. what is to be done
about 1t.
Lawyer Thorndike-The constitu-
ton of the state, Act XII, Section z,
provides that personal property to an
amount not exceeding in value 5000
for each individual may, by general
laws, be exempted from taxation. On
March 1. 1853, the legislature acted
on this matter and provided that each
individual in the state might hold as
exempt from taxation personal prop
erty Of any description, of which he
was the actual owner, not exceeding
$50 in value.
This remained the law Of Ohio till
May 8. 1894, when the exemption was
increased from $50 to 500. and the
dogs were excepted. The law has re-
NAMED in this form since.
Farmer Perkins-But why were not
the dogs excepted until 1894, and why
were they excepted at all?
Lawyer Thorndike-The legislative
Journals are too ponderous reading for
any citizen, and cannot answer your
question without them. There is al
ways one fool In every legislature, and
the legislature of 1894 was no excep-
ton. In this case the fool got his work
to be endorsed by the body of which
he was part, as is sometimes done.
All the cranks try to break into the
legislature. Some of them are sure to
succeed. in some counties. and when
they do. they sometimes engraft their
folly into the law.
Farmer Perkins-But Abel Jones
says it is his constitutional right to
exempt his dogs if he wants to, and he
does not propose to be trampled on if
he can help it. Is there no way he can
have the law declared unconstitutional
or otherwise nullify It?
Lawyer Thorndike-I would not ad-
wise your friend to try the supreme
court on the dog question. That court
is unduly sensitive on that subject.
A citizen of Washington county,
q descendant of the famous Rich
ard Roe, of legal textbooks, tried
to vindicate the dogs. Ex-Judge
Loomis. father of the minister
to Venezuela, convinced the court of
common pleas of that county that the
dog tax law contained in Section 2,754
of the Revised Statutes, was unconsti-
tutional, but Nye and Oldham took the
case to the district court. That court
considered the question too hefty for
1t, and passed the dog up to the su-
preme court. Judge Loomis argued
manfully for the dog in the supreme
court. but its sympathies could not be
aroused for the noble animal. The
court resorted to the police power to
avoid the ad valorem rule in the con-
stitution as to dogs. When that court
wishes to sustain a measure, and can
think Of no other way. it resorts to
the police power.
Farmer Perkins-But If Abel Jones
cannot exempt his dogs from taxation
on the authority Of the supreme court,
is there no other way in which he can
do it?
Lawyer Thorndike-Oh, yes. It is
very easy to defeat the law, II Abel
Jones is so disposed. The exemptions
are all made in the mind Of the tax
bearer. The tax list does not require
him to set out and value his exempt
property, 80 he selects it in his mind,
and then lists his other property and
values 1t. Abel Jones can, in his mind,
value his dogs at 500, return his other
property, and thus he will exempt his
dogs in spite Of the legislature.
Farmer PerAns-Is there no way
in which Abel Jones can be prevented
from thus exempting his dogs?
Lawyer Thorndike-Not If Abel
Jones keeps still tongue. By so doing.
his return will never be questioned.
Farmer Perkins-But under this ex-
emption Of 500 in personal property
| might not the tax bearer really ex-
empt personal property in a much
larger sum?
Lawyer Thorndike-Oh. yes, that is
very easy. The law Of Ohio makes
every man the appraiser of his own
property, and his own assessor. The
so-called assessor is only an errand
boy employed at $500 per day to dis
tribute blanks and gather them up.
This exemption is good for $1,000 at
any time to b citizen Of any ability
and with an easy conscience. He can
say In his mind that certain personal
property which cost $1,000 is worth
500, list his other property, and thus
exempt $1,000 under a 800 clause.
Farmer Perkins-But might not a
party doing this be prosecuted for per-
jury?
Lawyer Thorndike-I have prac-
ticed law for 81 years and never heard
of prosecution for perjury for false
oath to a tax list. There is not now
and never was a convict in the Ohio
penitentiary for false oath to tax
return, nor is there any in any peni-
tentiary in the United States Of which
Z haord