The daily journal. (Salem, Or.) 1899-1903, 1903-04-18
CANNOT
ESCAPE
TAXES
Legislature Does Away With
all Exemptions
The $500 Furniture Clause
Goes With the Balance

| Nut Fi0htcteA VI ehN eoHNaoAAthN IN"
exempting $500 worth of furniture.
etc, owned by a householder. In re-
enacting the law, with some changes.
this provision, and another providing
for exemption in the case Of aged in
digent and inhrm persons, not able to
pay taxes, were. IL is said. omitted;
so that as the law is understood TO
stand now the only property exempt
is that OF churches, libraries. beneyo-
lent and scientific institutions, etc.
That is, the $500 exemption for every
householder is no longer the law, and
everybody with anything worth tax.
ing at all can be made TO dig up"
II is improbable that the legislature
intended to repeal this 5000 exemp-
tion clause: unlikely that more than
a small minority understood what
was being done Otherwise, there
would surely have been vigorous pro
tests on the part OF many friends and
servants OF the poor. downtrodden
people. IL Is not charged that the
change was made surreptitiously; but
evidently a good many members we're
careless to the extent OF not knowing
just what changes were being made.
But since there Is not longer a
householder's exemption what will
the assessor and tax collector do
about IL? VIII everybody with u few
dollars worth OF furniture or extra
clothes. or a watch. or a violin. be
taxed? And II so. will there be music
in the air? For hasn't this 5000 ex-
emption law been in force. and well
improved. too. since there was any
law in Oregon at all?
II Is tolerably certain that II every.
body with anything is taxed, and no
exemption Of private persons are al
lowed, We shall see this exemption
clause re-enacted in 1906, Not neces-
sarily because II is good or now so
much as formerly necessary proyls.
! ion as because the great majority OF
people want the exemption, and what
they want. II IL Is something that af-
fects their pockets, they will get
Il is suggested that a case be made
up by assessing some hitherto non'as.
sessable personal property, and taken
10 the Supreme Court. On what
ground is not stated Almost any law
enacted is. or may be, unconstitution-
al: but how can the mere dropping
OF an. old law. It's repeal, be consti'
tutonal? On the ground OF vested
rights?" OF immemorial use OF this
privilege? Or OF manifest astigmat'
ism on the part OF the legislature?
The general theory is that all property
OF every kind. owned by anybody. isl
subject TO taxation. Any exemption
or exception must he by special en-,
actment. But may We yet have a de-
cision that this rule is subject to the
$500 exception? II so. on what iu
dicial grounds"
May not a better tack be-the sug
gestion is made with all due humility
we are not a lawyer-to walt until
some overt act is done by the Asses
sor and then enjoin him from pro
ceeding? With good management a
case like this ought TO be STAYED on
till 1905. when the Legislature could
not only re-enact the exemption clause
but render nugatory any proceedings
attempting TO tax hitherto exempt
property.
Seriously. the law exempung a GER
tain amount Of householder's property
is founded deeply in Justice and good
policy, Il is intended 10 protect the
poor family to that extent. Il has
been made the instrument OF exemp-
tions OF property OF welLto-do people
amounting TO far more than the legal
limit Under this law the state is con
stantly defrauded in a greater or less
degree by very large proportion OF
the people. But since others do It,
each thinks himself entitled TO do the
same
Perhaps il really might be well 10
have no more such exemptions, to In.
sist that everybody pay taxes on
everything he has. But II this is TO
be the rule. we shall have along with
IL some more stringent laws taxing
corporations and franchises. II we
really tax everybody, and strictly in
proportion TO his property. OF what.
ever kind, tangible or Intangible"
then the poor people can afford to
torego this exemption to which they
and others have been 50 long accust.
omed.