New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-02-22
CONSTITUTION TINKERTEG.

Justice Story in his commentaries laid down
n wise rule for constitution makers when he
said: There ought TO be capacity to provide
sfor future contingencies as they may happen
''and as these illimitable in their
nature so il is impossible safely to limit that
'capacity" This maxim is too often disregarded,
particularly by cur State constitutions many
of which are not properly constitutions at
all. but merely statute law. made more than
commonly difficult of amendment. This results
IN constant constitution tinaering. and also in
a looseness OF statement-so as 10 leave .oop-
holes for emergencies in sections intended TO
be drastic over small details-that makes con-
stitutional provisions of no real force and mean
ing conspicuous example of this is found in
Article VIII of the New-York Constitution.
which says: Corporations may be formed
s'under general laws: but shall not be created
''by special act, except for municipal purposes.
"and in cases where. in the judgment of the
Legislature the objects of the corporation can
mot be attained under general laws" This
means that the legislature shall not do some
thing unless il wants to- and amounts to nothing
more than piece Of sage advice without bind
ing force
The proposed constitutional amendment re-
Gently introduced by Senator z. r. Brown not
only violates Justice Story's principle. but like
wise lays down a rule which may be greatly
troublesome without being really effective. 1t
says that hereafter there shall be no general tax
s1evy on the real and personal property in the
Estate except to meet expenses of national de-
fence Of maintaining the union of the States.
@of quelling instruction. or as required by a
s+vote of the people on proposition submitted
pursuant 10 joint resolution Of the Senate
~and Assembly" II does not necessarily abol-
fish direct taxation. but puts obstacles in the
way Of il. A great emergency might arise
other than those specified when indirect in
come was quite inadequate. and any new in
direct tax which could be wisely levied would
be inadequate, and the State would be
left without revenue: yet it would be
possible when there no real need to find
an excuse for levying direct taxes, If it suited
the purposes of politicians
But even II the amendment was not open TO
this objection X would still violate the funda-
mental principle Of wise constitution making
IL is an attempt TO fasten legislative policy
upon the fundamental Law. There is doubt In
some minds whether the policy of indlrect
taxation for State purposes is always wise
one. IL has the advantage OF simplifying local
taxation and avoiding the need OF equalization
II may If wisely directed. compel certain prop
erty to share the burdens Of government which
would not pay fair proportion OF general tax
levy On the other hand. in its search for
strange sources OF revenue. ii may levy tax
on incidents and on business rather than on
property. Moreover IL may divorce the State gov
eminent from the people. and make them less
watchfuI Of the character and amount OF ex-
pendifures than is necessary. not merely for
the public purse. but for the public morals
But even If ii be conceded that under present
all for Wy
to complete the scheme of indirect taxation